Evaluation of the Minimum Clinically Important Differences of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Journal
Clinical spine surgery
ISSN: 2380-0194
Titre abrégé: Clin Spine Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101675083
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
2
10
2020
medline:
26
10
2021
entrez:
1
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A case-control study. This study aimed to evaluate the minimally clinically important differences (MCIDs) of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) after microendoscopic laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The ZCQ is a self-administered tool used to evaluate symptom severity and physical function in patients with LSS. It has been used in many studies worldwide. However, the MCIDs of the ZCQ have not yet been determined. The study sample consisted of 514 patients who underwent microendoscopic laminectomy for LSS at our hospital between March 2012 and May 2014. The ZCQ, which includes 7 items for symptom severity (scored from 1 to 5) and 5 items for functional disability (scored from 1 to 4), was administered preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. The MCID was calculated by 4 approaches, including average change, minimum detectable change, change difference, and receiver operating characteristic curve. The authors calculated the area under the curve (AUC) to evaluate the accuracy of the receiver operating characteristic curve. The responsiveness of each measurement was then analyzed. The authors were able to administer the ZCQ at 1-year postoperatively in 349 patients. The ZCQ score was statistically significantly improved 1-year postoperatively. The MCID of ZCQ for symptom severity varied from 0.75 to 0.84, whereas the MCID of the ZCQ score for functional disability varied from 0.60 to 0.76. The AUC of the ZCQ for symptom severity was 0.81 and that for functional disability was 0.80. This study showed that the MCID of the ZCQ for symptom severity varied from 0.75 to 0.84 and the MCID for functional disability varied from 0.60 to 0.76. In addition, each AUC was over 0.80, indicating that MCIDs of the ZCQ were found to have a high diagnostic performance.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
A case-control study.
OBJECT
This study aimed to evaluate the minimally clinically important differences (MCIDs) of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) after microendoscopic laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
The ZCQ is a self-administered tool used to evaluate symptom severity and physical function in patients with LSS. It has been used in many studies worldwide. However, the MCIDs of the ZCQ have not yet been determined.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study sample consisted of 514 patients who underwent microendoscopic laminectomy for LSS at our hospital between March 2012 and May 2014. The ZCQ, which includes 7 items for symptom severity (scored from 1 to 5) and 5 items for functional disability (scored from 1 to 4), was administered preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. The MCID was calculated by 4 approaches, including average change, minimum detectable change, change difference, and receiver operating characteristic curve. The authors calculated the area under the curve (AUC) to evaluate the accuracy of the receiver operating characteristic curve. The responsiveness of each measurement was then analyzed.
RESULTS
The authors were able to administer the ZCQ at 1-year postoperatively in 349 patients. The ZCQ score was statistically significantly improved 1-year postoperatively. The MCID of ZCQ for symptom severity varied from 0.75 to 0.84, whereas the MCID of the ZCQ score for functional disability varied from 0.60 to 0.76. The AUC of the ZCQ for symptom severity was 0.81 and that for functional disability was 0.80.
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that the MCID of the ZCQ for symptom severity varied from 0.75 to 0.84 and the MCID for functional disability varied from 0.60 to 0.76. In addition, each AUC was over 0.80, indicating that MCIDs of the ZCQ were found to have a high diagnostic performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33000928
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000983
pii: 01933606-202012000-00016
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E499-E503Références
North American Spine Society Evidenced-Based Clinical Guidelines Committee. Diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Burr Ridge, IL, USA: North American Spine Society. 2011. Available at: www.spine.org/Documents/ResearchClinicalCare/Guidelines/LumbarStenosis.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2015.
Ishimoto Y, Yoshimura N, Muraki S, et al. Associations between radiographic lumbar spinal stenosis and clinical symptoms in the general population: the Wakayama Spine Study. Osteoathritis Cartilage. 2013;21:783–788.
Hara N, Oka H, Yamazaki T, et al. Predictors of residual symptoms in lower extremities after decompression surgery on lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:1849–1854.
Fairbank J. Use of Oswestry disability index (ODI). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:1535–1537.
Kim YU, Kong YG, Lee J, et al. Clinical symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis associated with morphological parameters on magnetic resonance images. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:2236–2243.
Sugiura S, Aoki Y, Toyooka T, et al. Characteristic of low back pain in adolescent patients with early-stage spondylolysis evaluated using a detailed visual analogue scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:E29–E34.
Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, et al. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21:796–803.
Hara N, Matsudaira K, Masuda K, et al. Psychometric Assessment of the Japanese Version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ): reliability and validity. PloS One. 2016;11:e0160183.
Fokter SK, Yerby SA. Patient-based outcomes for the operative treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:1661–1669.
Antoniadis A, Ulrich NH, Schmid S, et al. Decompression surgery for lumbar spinal canal stenosis in octogenarians: a single center experience 121 consecutive patients. Br J Neurosurg. 2017;31:67–71.
Cheng X, Zhang K, Sun X, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of bilateral decompression via a unilateral approach with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with stenosis. Spine J. 2017;17:1127–1133.
Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concept and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541–546.
Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, et al. Neck Disability Index, Short Form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J. 2010;10:469–474.
Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, et al. Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:760–766.
Solberg T, Johnsen LG, Nygaard ØP, et al. Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery? Acta Orthopaedica. 2013;84:196–201.
Ware JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3130–3139.
Kuikarni AV. Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:176–184.
Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, et al. 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. 2008;8:968–974.
Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, et al. 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. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:471–478.
Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, et al. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:81–87.
Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. Swedish Lumbar Spine Study G: the clinical importance of change in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:12–20.
Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, et al. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18:154–160.
de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee C-B, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:131–142.