0
Scientific Articles   |    
Minimum Clinically Important Differences in the Cervical Spine Outcomes QuestionnaireResults from a National Multicenter Study of Patients Treated with Anterior Cervical Decompression and Arthrodesis
Richard L. Skolasky, ScD1; Todd J. Albert, MD1; Anica M. Maggard, BS1; Lee H. Riley, III, MD1
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, 4940 Eastern Avenue, #A665, Baltimore, MD 21224. E-mail address for R.L. Skolasky: ehenze1@jhmi.edu
View Disclosures and Other Information
Disclosure: One or more of the authors received payments or services, either directly or indirectly (i.e., via his or her institution), from a third party in support of an aspect of this work. In addition, one or more of the authors, or his or her institution, has had a financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work, with an entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. Also, one or more of the authors has had another relationship, or has engaged in another activity, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. The complete Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest submitted by the authors of this work are available with the online version of this article at jbjs.org.

  • Disclosure statement for author(s): PDF

Copyright © 2011 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2011 Jul 20;93(14):1294-1300. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01136
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: 

The minimum clinically important difference is a clinically relevant threshold of improvement. A substantial clinical benefit is a threshold of change that correlates with clinically important improvement. The Cervical Spine Outcomes Questionnaire is a disease-specific, patient-reported outcomes instrument that was developed to be sensitive to changes associated with surgical treatment for degenerative cervical disc disease. To determine thresholds for change in these domain scores that are important from the patient's perspective, we estimated the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit values for this questionnaire's domain scores.

Methods: 

We evaluated 252 patients from the Cervical Spine Research Society Outcomes Study at their six-month follow-up visits after anterior cervical spine decompression and arthrodesis. Using a receiver operating characteristics curve, with the health transition item of the Short Form-36 as an anchor, we determined that the minimum clinically important difference (the value that maximized sensitivity and specificity to differentiate the "somewhat better" and "much better" responses from others) and the substantial clinical benefit (the value that maximized sensitivity and specificity to differentiate the "much better" response from others) for our questionnaire's domain scores. Responses were scaled between 0 and 1 point; higher scores denoted more severe impairment. Patient and clinical characteristics were tested to determine their influence on score changes.

Results: 

The minimum clinically important difference ranged from 0.13 point (for functional disability) to 0.24 point (for arm/shoulder pain). The substantial clinical benefit score ranged from 0.20 point (for functional disability or physical symptoms other than pain) to 0.30 point (for neck or arm/shoulder pain). Age, sex, and duration of current symptoms were not associated with change in our questionnaire's domain scores.

Conclusions: 

A 0.13-point change in the functional disability domain score indicated a clinically important difference in a self-reported outcome after anterior cervical spine surgery. A 0.30-point change in neck pain after surgery indicated a clinically important clinical benefit. This information, coupled with previous reports of the psychometric stability of the Cervical Spine Outcomes Questionnaire, should increase the clinical utility of this patient-reported outcomes instrument.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

    References

    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe





    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    12/31/2013
    S. Carolina - Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Univerity of South Carlonina
    11/15/2013
    Louisiana - Ochsner Health System
    01/22/2014
    Pennsylvania - Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
    03/05/2014
    Oklahoma - The University of Oklahoma