Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Clinical article

Restricted access

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Object

Outcome studies for spine surgery rely on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess treatment effects. Commonly used health-related quality-of-life questionnaires include the following scales: back pain and leg pain visual analog scale (BP-VAS and LP-VAS); the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); and the EuroQol-5D health survey (EQ-5D). A shortcoming of these questionnaires is that their numerical scores lack a direct meaning or clinical significance. Because of this, the concept of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been put forth as a measure for the critical threshold needed to achieve treatment effectiveness. By this measure, treatment effects reaching the MCID threshold value imply clinical significance and justification for implementation into clinical practice.

Methods

In 45 consecutive patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for low-grade degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis-associated back and leg pain, PRO questionnaires measuring BP-VAS, LPVAS, ODI, and EQ-5D were administered preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively, and 2-year change scores were calculated. Four established anchor-based MCID calculation methods were used to calculate MCID, as follows: 1) average change; 2) minimum detectable change (MDC); 3) change difference; and 4) receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for two separate anchors (the health transition index [HTI] of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36], and the satisfaction index).

Results

All patients were available at the 2-year follow-up. The 2-year improvements in BP-VAS, LP-VAS, ODI, and EQ-5D scores were 4.3 ± 2.9, 3.8 ± 3.4, 19.5 ± 11.3, and 0.43 ± 0.44, respectively (mean ± SD). The 4 MCID calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each of the PROs (BP-VAS, 2.1–5.3; LP-VAS, 2.1–4.7; ODI, 11–22.9; and EQ-5D, 0.15–0.54). The mean area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver operating characteristic curve from the 4 PRO-specific calculations was greater for the HTI versus satisfaction anchor (HTI [AUC 0.73] vs satisfaction [AUC 0.69]), suggesting HTI as a more accurate anchor.

Conclusions

The TLIF-specific MCID is highly variable based on calculation technique. The MDC approach with the SF-36 HTI anchor appears to be most appropriate for calculating MCID because it provided a threshold above the 95% CI of the unimproved cohort (greater than the measurement error), was closest to the mean change score reported by improved and satisfied patients, and was least affected by the choice of anchor. Based on the MDC method with HTI anchor, MCID scores following TLIF are 2.1 points for BP-VAS, 2.8 points for LP-VAS, 14.9 points for ODI, and 0.46 quality-adjusted life years for EQ-5D.

Abbreviations used in this paper: AUC = area under the curve; BP-VAS = back pain visual analog scale; EQ-5D = EuroQol-5D health survey; HTI = health transition index; LP-VAS = leg pain VAS; MCID = minimum clinically important difference; MDC = minimum detectable change; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PRO = patient-reported outcome; QALY = quality-adjusted life year; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SF-36 = 36-Item Short Form Health Survey; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Matthew J. McGirt, M.D., Department of Neurosurgery, 4347 The Village at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-8618. email: matthewmcgirt@gmail.com.Please include this information when citing this paper: published online February 18, 2011; DOI: 10.3171/2010.12.SPINE10472.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Badia XDiaz-Prieto AGorriz MTHerdman MTorrado HFarrero E: Using the EuroQol-5D to measure changes in quality of life 12 months after discharge from an intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 27:190119072001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Beaton DE: Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. Med Care 41:5935962003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Carreon LYGlassman SDCampbell MJAnderson PA: Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 10:4694742010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Copay AGGlassman SDSubach BRBerven SSchuler TCCarreon LY: Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:9689742008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Copay AGSubach BRGlassman SDPolly DW JrSchuler TC: Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:5415462007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Fairbank JCCouper JDavies JBO'Brien JP: The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:2712731980

  • 7

    Fairbank JCPynsent PB: The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:294029522000

  • 8

    Gallagher EJLiebman MBijur PE: Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain severity measured on a visual analog scale. Ann Emerg Med 38:6336382001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Grönblad MHupli MWennerstrand PJärvinen ELukinmaa AKouri JP: Intercorrelation and test-retest reliability of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients. Clin J Pain 9:1891951993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Hägg OFritzell PNordwall A: The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12202003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Hägg OFritzell POdén ANordwall A: Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Spine 27:121312222002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Hays RDWoolley JM: The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?. Pharmacoeconomics 18:4194232000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Jaeschke RSinger JGuyatt GH: Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:4074151989

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Jansson KANémeth GGranath FJönsson BBlomqvist P: Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and one year after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:2102162009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Kulkarni AV: Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1761842006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Norman GRSloan JAWyrwich KW: Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41:5825922003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Roland MFairbank J: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine 25:311531242000

  • 18

    Samsa GEdelman DRothman MLWilliams GRLipscomb JMatchar D: Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 15:1411551999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Stratford PWBinkley JMRiddle DLGuyatt GH: Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 78:118611961998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Taylor SJTaylor AEFoy MAFogg AJ: Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine 24:180518121999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    van der Roer NOstelo RWBekkering GEvan Tulder MWde Vet HC: Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 31:5785822006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Ware JE Jr: SF-36 health survey update. Spine 25:313031392000

  • 23

    Wright JG: Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple. Med Care 41:5975982003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Wyrwich KWNienaber NATierney WMWolinsky FD: Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 37:4694781999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Wyrwich KWTierney WMWolinsky FD: Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52:8618731999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Cited By
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 761 503 31
Full Text Views 214 104 8
PDF Downloads 206 54 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar