Current Trends in the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in Degenerative Cervical Spine Surgery

Ueda, Haruki; Cutler, Holt S.; Guzman, Javier Z.; Cho, Samuel K.

doi:10.1055/s-0035-1559584

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The NDI is one of the most common PROMs for neck pain and is regularly used by rheumatologists, spine surgeons, and physiotherapists . More studies reporting MCIDs for specific pathologies and patient populations are required .…”

Section: Neck Disability Index (Ndi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subjective and Objective Measures of Symptoms, Function, and Outcome in Patients With Degenerative Spine Disease

Maldaner

Stienen

2020

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Neck Disability Index (Ndi)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This leads to an even greater number of outcome measures that cannot all be included in the scope of this review. However, this article should provide the reader with a comprehensive summary of carefully selected instruments (Tables 1 and 2) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subjective and Objective Measures of Symptoms, Function, and Outcome in Patients With Degenerative Spine Disease

Maldaner

Stienen

2020

Arthritis Care & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…20 Finally, Ueda et al assessed PROs in degenerative cervical spine surgery and reported comparable heterogeneity, with 53 total outcomes reported. 21 The authors of these studies conclude that there is a need for greater standardization and guidelines to specify which instruments should be used for a given spinal disease or treatment. While it is less surprising that there are heterogeneous outcomes reported across various spinal pathologies in the study by Guzman et al, our findings of similar heterogeneity in a focused search in LSS confirms these concerns and highlights the need for standardization of outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wide Variability in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures After Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Winebrake

Lovecchio

Steinhaus

et al. 2019

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to review outcomes reporting methodology in studies evaluating fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted from January 2007 to June 2017 for English language studies with minimum of 2 years postoperative follow-up reporting outcomes after fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis. Two reviewers assessed each study; those meeting inclusion criteria were examined for pertinent data. Outcome measures were categorized into relevant domains: pain/symptomatology, function/disability, and surgical satisfaction. Return to work reporting was also recorded. Results: Of 123 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 76% included posterior-only fusion, 32% included posterior/transforaminal interbody fusion, and 5% included anterior/lateral interbody fusion (non-mutually exclusive). There was significant variation in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used—studies reported 31 unique PROs assessing at least one domain: 22 evaluating pain, 23 evaluating function, and 3 evaluating surgical satisfaction. Most commonly utilized PROs were the Oswestry Disability Index (73% of studies), Visual Analog Scale (55%), and 36-Item Short Form Survey (32%). The remaining 28 measures were used in 14% of studies or fewer. PROs specific to symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis, such as the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, were only used rarely (7/123 studies). Only 14% of studies reported on time to return to work. Conclusions: The literature surrounding fusion in the setting of lumbar stenosis is characterized by substantial variability in outcomes reporting. Very few studies utilized measures specific to lumbar spinal stenosis. Efforts to standardize outcomes reporting would facilitate comparisons of surgical interventions.

show abstract

“…A number of studies have examined PROI trends in the current literature. [ 7 9 13 ] However, most of these efforts have been confined to orthopedics rather than neurosurgery, which is a potential drawback. [ 9 ] There have been limited efforts in analyzing PROI use in neurosurgical literature and, to our knowledge, none to examine the trends in use over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 5 ] The use of PROIs has been explored in multiple ways within spine surgery, however more so within orthopedic surgery. [ 6 7 8 9 ] Studies have been undertaken to validate the use of certain PROIs since their use deviates from classical measures used to examine interventional success. [ 10 ] A large proportion of the past spine literature has focused on operative metrics, radiographic outcomes, and physician-produced scales as primary determinants of the successful intervention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in the use of patient-reported outcome instruments in neurosurgical adult thoracolumbar deformity and degenerative disease literature

Algattas

Cohen

Agarwal

et al. 2017

J Craniovert Jun Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:Shifting national healthcare trends place increased emphasis on patient-centered care and value-based outcomes, and thus, patient-reported outcome instruments (PROIs) are often used. We sought to characterize the trends in PROI use over the past decade with regard to thoracolumbar degenerative spine disease and spinal deformity in major neurosurgical journals.Methods:Articles were screened for PROI use through a PubMed search among five major neurosurgical journals from 2006 to 2016. Articles focusing on adult thoracolumbar deformity and degenerative disease were selected with stringent criteria to further characterize PROI use.Results:A total of 29 different PROIs were used among 102 articles identified from 2006 to 2016 using our search strategy. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine contained the most articles utilizing PROIs with 35.3% of all articles meeting search criteria. The most frequently used PROIs were Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale, and the European Quality of Life Five-dimension questionnaire used in 79.4%, 59.8%, and 29.4% of articles, respectively. Linear regression identified a significant increase in the number of articles employing PROIs from 2006 to 2016 (Y = 1.85, R2= 0.77, P < 0.01). The total number of PROIs per article was relatively stagnant over time and did not significantly change (Y = 0.03, R2= 0.05, P = 0.51).Conclusions:PROI use as an outcome tool in the adult thoracolumbar disease literature has increased during the past decade, which may be an indicative of PROI use to define patient expectations. This may also represent a trend toward PROI use as a surrogate measure of value-based care.

show abstract

Current Trends in the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in Degenerative Cervical Spine Surgery

Cited by 10 publications

References 36 publications

Subjective and Objective Measures of Symptoms, Function, and Outcome in Patients With Degenerative Spine Disease

Subjective and Objective Measures of Symptoms, Function, and Outcome in Patients With Degenerative Spine Disease

Wide Variability in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures After Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Trends in the use of patient-reported outcome instruments in neurosurgical adult thoracolumbar deformity and degenerative disease literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About