Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Clinical article

Restricted access

Object

Treatment effectiveness following spine surgery is usually gauged with the help of patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires. Although these questionnaires assess pain, disability, and general health state, their numerical scores lack direct, clinically significant meaning. Thus, the concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been introduced, which indicates the smallest change in an outcome measure that reflects clinically meaningful improvement to patients. The authors set out to determine anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)–specific MCID values for the visual analog scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and EQ-5D (the EuroQol health survey) in patients undergoing ACDF for cervical radiculopathy.

Methods

Data on 69 patients who underwent ACDF for cervical radiculopathy were collected in the authors' web-based, prospective registry during the study enrollment period. Patient-reported outcome questionnaires (VAS–neck pain [NP]), VAS–arm pain [AP], NDI, SF-12, and EQ-5D) were administered preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively, allowing 3-month change scores to be calculated. Four established calculation methods were used to calculate anchor-based MCID values using the North American Spine Society (NASS) patient satisfaction scale as the anchor: 1) average change, 2) minimum detectable change (MDC), 3) change difference, and 4) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results

Sixty-one patients (88%) were available at follow-up. At 3 months postoperatively, statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001) was observed for the following PROs assessed: VAS-NP (2.7 ± 3.3), VAS-AP (3.7 ± 3.6), NDI (23.2% ± 19.7%), SF-12 physical component score (PCS; 10.7 ± 9.7), and EQ-5D (0.20 ± 0.23 QALY). Improvement on the SF-12 mental component score (MCS) trended toward significance (3.4 ± 11.4, p = 0.07). The 4 MCID calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each of the PROs: VAS-NP 2.6–4.0, VAS-AP 2.4–4.2, NDI 16.0%–27.6%, SF-12 PCS 7.0–12.2, SF-12 MCS 0.0–7.2, and EQ-5D 0.05–0.24 QALY. The maximum area under the curve (AUC) was observed for NDI (0.80), and the minimum AUC was observed for SF-12 MCS (0.66) and EQ-5D (0.67). Based on the MDC approach, the MCID threshold was 2.6 points for VAS-NP, 4.1 points for VAS-AP, 17.3% for NDI, 8.1 points for SF-12 PCS, 4.7 points for SF-12 MCS, and 0.24 QALY for EQ-5D. The mean improvement in patient scores at 3 months surpassed the MCID threshold for VAS-NP, NDI, and SF-12 PCS but not for VAS-AP, SF-12 MCS, and EQ-5D.

Conclusions

The ACDF-specific MCID is highly variable depending on the calculation technique used. The MDC approach seems to be most appropriate for MCID calculations in the ACDF population, as it provided a threshold value above the 95% confidence interval of nonresponders (greater than the measurement error) and was closest to the average change of most PROs reported by responders. When the MDC method was applied with the NASS patient satisfaction scale as the anchor, the MCID thresholds were 2.6 points for VAS-NP, 4.1 points for VAS-AP, 17.3% for NDI, 8.1 points for SF-12 PCS, 4.7 points for SF-12 MCS, and 0.24 QALY for EQ-5D.

Abbreviations used in this paper:ACDF = anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; AUC = area under the ROC curve; MCID = minimum clinically important difference; MCS = motor component score; MDC = minimum detectable change; NASS = North American Spine Society; NDI = Neck Disability Index; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; PCS = physical component score; PRO = patient-reported outcome; QALY = quality-adjusted life year; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SF-12 = 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey; VAS = visual analog scale; VAS-AP = VAS–arm pain; VAS-NP = VAS–neck pain.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Scott L. Parker, M.D., 4347 Village at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-8618. email: scott.parker@vanderbilt.edu.Please include this information when citing this paper: published online November 23, 2012; DOI: 10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12312.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Adogwa OParker SLShau DMendelhall SKCheng JAaronson O: Long-term outcomes of revision fusion for lumbar pseudarthrosis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15:3933982011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Anderson PASubach BRRiew KD: Predictors of outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a multivariate analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1611662009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    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
  • 4

    Carr FAHealy KMVillavicencio ATNelson ELMason ABurneikiene S: Effect on clinical outcomes of patient pain expectancies and preoperative Mental Component Summary scores from the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 15:4864902011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    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
  • 6

    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
  • 7

    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
  • 8

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

  • 9

    Fairbank JCPynsent PB: The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:294029522000

  • 10

    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
  • 11

    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
  • 12

    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
  • 13

    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
  • 14

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    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
  • 16

    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
  • 17

    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
  • 18

    Oh MCZhang HYPark JYKim KS: Two-level anterior cervical discectomy versus one-level corpectomy in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:6926962009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Parker SLAdogwa OPaul ARAnderson WNAaronson OCheng JS: Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 14:5986042011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Parker SLMendenhall SKShau DAdogwa OCheng JSAnderson WN: Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:61672012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Parker SLMendenhall SKShau DNAdogwa OAnderson WNDevin CJ: Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 16:4714782012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Richardson SSBerven S: The development of a model for translation of the Neck Disability Index to utility scores for cost-utility analysis in cervical disorders. Spine J 12:55622012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Roland MFairbank J: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:311531242000

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    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
  • 25

    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
  • 26

    Taylor SJTaylor AEFoy MAFogg AJ: Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:180518121999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    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 (Phila Pa 1976) 31:5785822006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Ware JE Jr: SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:313031392000

  • 29

    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
  • 30

    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
  • 31

    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
TrendMD
Cited By
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 897 664 87
Full Text Views 313 125 5
PDF Downloads 269 77 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar