Responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: evaluation of surgically treated patients from the NORDSTEN study.
Cut-off values
Degenerative spondylolisthesis
Lumbar spinal stenosis
NORDSTEN-study
Responsiveness ODI and ZCQ
Journal
European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
ISSN: 1432-0932
Titre abrégé: Eur Spine J
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9301980
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Aug 2024
13 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
24
04
2024
accepted:
30
07
2024
revised:
24
04
2024
medline:
13
8
2024
pubmed:
13
8
2024
entrez:
12
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To evaluate the responsiveness of the original low back pain specific Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the spinal stenosis specific Zürich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and to investigate cut-off values for clinical "success" for ODI and ZCQ in surgically treated patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). We included 601 LSS patients (218 with, 383 without degenerative spondylolisthesis) from the NORDSTEN trials. Outcome measures included ODI and ZCQ (symptom severity and physical function scales) with three alternative response parameters: scores at follow-up, absolute and relative changes from baseline to two-year follow-up. Effect size and standardised response mean evaluated internal responsiveness. External responsiveness was assessed by the Spearman rank correlation between patient-reported global perceived effect scale (GPE) and ODI and ZCQ, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC). We evaluated which cut-off values could maximise the percentage of correctly classified patients according to the GPE-anchor "completely recovered" / "much improved" for each parameter. Internal and external responsiveness were high for all three indices with effect sizes, standardized response means, ROC and corresponding area under the curve > 0.8. Correlations with GPE responses were moderate (> 0.50) for absolute change and strong (> 0.67) for relative change and follow-up scores. The 30% ODI relative change cut-off correctly classified 81% of patients to "success", within a range of accurate cut-offs according to the GPE-anchor. ODI and ZCQ demonstrate comparable responsiveness in evaluating outcomes for surgically treated LSS patients. The 30% ODI threshold was consistent with treatment "success" in NORDSTEN trials. ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02007083 10/12/2013, NCT02051374 31/01/2014 and NCT03562936 20/06/2018.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39134699
doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08440-1
pii: 10.1007/s00586-024-08440-1
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02007083', 'NCT02051374', 'NCT03562936']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Machado GC et al (2017) Trends, complications, and costs for hospital admission and surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42(22):1737–1743
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002207
Grøvle L et al (2019) The Rates of LSS Surgery in Norwegian public hospitals: a threefold increase from 1999 to 2013. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 44(6):E372–e378
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002858
Minamide A, Yoshida M, Maio K (2013) The natural clinical course of lumbar spinal stenosis: a longitudinal cohort study over a minimum of 10 years. J Orthop Sci 18(5):693–698
doi: 10.1007/s00776-013-0435-9
Austevoll IM et al (2021) Decompression with or without Fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med 385(6):526–538
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100990
Hermansen E et al (2022) Comparison of 3 different minimally Invasive Surgical techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 5(3):e224291
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4291
pmcid: 8961320
Zaina F et al Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2016(1): p. Cd010264.
Husted JA et al (2000) Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 53(5):459–468
doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1
Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The oswestry disability index Spine 2000.Nov 15;25(22.):2940.-53., 25(22): pp. 2940–2953
Winebrake JP et al (2020) Wide variability in patient-reported outcomes measures after Fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review. Global Spine J 10(2):209–215
doi: 10.1177/2192568219832853
Stucki G et al (1996) Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21(7):796–803
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199604010-00004
Fujimori T et al (2022) Responsiveness of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Index, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain evaluation questionnaire, the 8-Item short Form Health Survey, and the Euroqol 5 dimensions 5 level in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J 31(6):1399–1412
doi: 10.1007/s00586-022-07236-5
Indrekvam K et al (2023) The Norwegian degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis (NORDSTEN) study: study overview, organization structure and study population. Eur Spine J
Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK (2003) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. J Rehabil Med 35(5):241–247
doi: 10.1080/16501970306094
Thornes E, Grotle M (2008) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian version of the spinal stenosis measure. Eur Spine J 17(3):456–462
doi: 10.1007/s00586-007-0576-7
pmcid: 2270389
Fairbank JC et al (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66(8):271–273
Grøvle L et al (2014) Patients’ ratings of global perceived change during 2 years were strongly influenced by the current health status. J Clin Epidemiol 67(5):508–515
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.001
Ostelo RW et al (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(1):90–94
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10
Dworkin RH et al (2008) Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 9(2):105–121
doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005
Bråten LCH et al (2022) Minimal important change was on the lower spectrum of previous estimates and responsiveness was sufficient for core outcomes in chronic low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 151:75–87
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.012
Austevoll IM et al (2019) Follow-up score, change score or percentage change score for determining clinical important outcome following surgery? An observational study from the Norwegian registry for spine surgery evaluating patient reported outcome measures in lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20(1):31
doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2386-y
pmcid: 6339296
van Hooff ML et al (2016) Determination of the Oswestry Disability Index score equivalent to a satisfactory symptom state in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine-a spine Tango registry-based study. Spine J 16(10):1221–1230
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.06.010
Ostelo RW, de Vet HC (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19(4):593–607
doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003
Taso M et al (2022) What is success of treatment? Expected outcome scores in cervical radiculopathy patients were much higher than the previously reported cut-off values for success. Eur Spine J 31(10):2761–2768
doi: 10.1007/s00586-022-07234-7
Parai C et al (2020) ISSLS prize in clinical science 2020: the reliability and interpretability of score change in lumbar spine research. Eur Spine J 29(4):663–669
doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06222-8
Kaur S et al (2023) Characteristics and outcomes of patients who did not respond to a national spine surgery registry. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 24(1):164
doi: 10.1186/s12891-023-06267-3
pmcid: 9985292