The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: Part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index

A. F. Mannion, F. Porchet, F. S. Kleinstück, F. Lattig, D. Jeszenszky, Viktor Bartanusz, J. Dvorak, D. Grob

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

74 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing multidimensional outcome in spine surgery. The minimal clinically important score-difference (MCID) for improvement (MCIDimp) was determined in one of the original research studies validating the instrument, but has never been confirmed in routine clinical practice. Further, the MCID for deterioration (MCIDdet) has never been investigated; indeed, this needs very large sample sizes to obtain sufficient cases with worsening. This study examined the MCIDs of the COMI in routine clinical practice. All patients undergoing surgery in our Spine Center since February 2004 were asked to complete the COMI before and 12 months after surgery. The COMI has one question each on back (neck) pain intensity, leg/buttock (arm/shoulder) pain intensity, function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality of life, work disability, and social disability, scored as a 0-10 index. At follow-up, patients also rated the global effectiveness of surgery, on a 5-point Likert scale. This was used as the external criterion ("anchor") in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses to derive cut-off scores for individual improvement and deterioration. Twelve-month follow-up questionnaires were returned by 3,056 (92%) patients. The group mean COMI score change for patients declaring that the "operation helped" was a reduction of 3.1 points; the corresponding value for those whom it "did not help" was a reduction of 0.5 points. The group MCIDimp was hence 2.6 points reduction; the corresponding group MCIDdet was 1.2 points increase (0.5 minus -0.7). The area under the ROC curve was 0.88 for MCIDimp and 0.89 for MCIDdet (both P < 0.0001), indicating that the COMI had good discriminative ability. The cut-offs for individual improvement and deterioration, respectively, were ≤2.2 points decrease (sensitivity 81%, specificity 83%) and ≤0.3 points increase (sensitivity 83%, specificity 88%). The MCIDimp score of 2.2 points was similar to that reported in the original study (2-3 points, depending on external criterion used). The MCID det suggested that the COMI is less responsive to deterioration than to improvement, a phenomenon also reported for other spine outcome instruments. This needs further investigation in even larger patient groups. The MCIDs provide essential information for both the planning (sample size) and interpretation of the results (clinical relevance) of future clinical studies using the COMI.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalEuropean Spine Journal
Volume18
Issue numberSUPPL. 3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Spine
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
ROC Curve
Sample Size
Sensitivity and Specificity
Shoulder Pain
Buttocks
Aptitude
Minimal Clinically Important Difference
Neck Pain
Back Pain
Leg
Arm
Quality of Life
Research

Keywords

  • COMI
  • Outcome
  • Spine surgery

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective : Part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. / Mannion, A. F.; Porchet, F.; Kleinstück, F. S.; Lattig, F.; Jeszenszky, D.; Bartanusz, Viktor; Dvorak, J.; Grob, D.

In: European Spine Journal, Vol. 18, No. SUPPL. 3, 08.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f8d237fd3f4646fd9202f4c977c99f97,
title = "The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: Part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index",
abstract = "The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing multidimensional outcome in spine surgery. The minimal clinically important score-difference (MCID) for improvement (MCIDimp) was determined in one of the original research studies validating the instrument, but has never been confirmed in routine clinical practice. Further, the MCID for deterioration (MCIDdet) has never been investigated; indeed, this needs very large sample sizes to obtain sufficient cases with worsening. This study examined the MCIDs of the COMI in routine clinical practice. All patients undergoing surgery in our Spine Center since February 2004 were asked to complete the COMI before and 12 months after surgery. The COMI has one question each on back (neck) pain intensity, leg/buttock (arm/shoulder) pain intensity, function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality of life, work disability, and social disability, scored as a 0-10 index. At follow-up, patients also rated the global effectiveness of surgery, on a 5-point Likert scale. This was used as the external criterion ({"}anchor{"}) in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses to derive cut-off scores for individual improvement and deterioration. Twelve-month follow-up questionnaires were returned by 3,056 (92{\%}) patients. The group mean COMI score change for patients declaring that the {"}operation helped{"} was a reduction of 3.1 points; the corresponding value for those whom it {"}did not help{"} was a reduction of 0.5 points. The group MCIDimp was hence 2.6 points reduction; the corresponding group MCIDdet was 1.2 points increase (0.5 minus -0.7). The area under the ROC curve was 0.88 for MCIDimp and 0.89 for MCIDdet (both P < 0.0001), indicating that the COMI had good discriminative ability. The cut-offs for individual improvement and deterioration, respectively, were ≤2.2 points decrease (sensitivity 81{\%}, specificity 83{\%}) and ≤0.3 points increase (sensitivity 83{\%}, specificity 88{\%}). The MCIDimp score of 2.2 points was similar to that reported in the original study (2-3 points, depending on external criterion used). The MCID det suggested that the COMI is less responsive to deterioration than to improvement, a phenomenon also reported for other spine outcome instruments. This needs further investigation in even larger patient groups. The MCIDs provide essential information for both the planning (sample size) and interpretation of the results (clinical relevance) of future clinical studies using the COMI.",
keywords = "COMI, Outcome, Spine surgery",
author = "Mannion, {A. F.} and F. Porchet and Kleinst{\"u}ck, {F. S.} and F. Lattig and D. Jeszenszky and Viktor Bartanusz and J. Dvorak and D. Grob",
year = "2009",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s00586-009-0931-y",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
journal = "European Spine Journal",
issn = "0940-6719",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "SUPPL. 3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective

T2 - Part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index

AU - Mannion, A. F.

AU - Porchet, F.

AU - Kleinstück, F. S.

AU - Lattig, F.

AU - Jeszenszky, D.

AU - Bartanusz, Viktor

AU - Dvorak, J.

AU - Grob, D.

PY - 2009/8

Y1 - 2009/8

N2 - The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing multidimensional outcome in spine surgery. The minimal clinically important score-difference (MCID) for improvement (MCIDimp) was determined in one of the original research studies validating the instrument, but has never been confirmed in routine clinical practice. Further, the MCID for deterioration (MCIDdet) has never been investigated; indeed, this needs very large sample sizes to obtain sufficient cases with worsening. This study examined the MCIDs of the COMI in routine clinical practice. All patients undergoing surgery in our Spine Center since February 2004 were asked to complete the COMI before and 12 months after surgery. The COMI has one question each on back (neck) pain intensity, leg/buttock (arm/shoulder) pain intensity, function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality of life, work disability, and social disability, scored as a 0-10 index. At follow-up, patients also rated the global effectiveness of surgery, on a 5-point Likert scale. This was used as the external criterion ("anchor") in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses to derive cut-off scores for individual improvement and deterioration. Twelve-month follow-up questionnaires were returned by 3,056 (92%) patients. The group mean COMI score change for patients declaring that the "operation helped" was a reduction of 3.1 points; the corresponding value for those whom it "did not help" was a reduction of 0.5 points. The group MCIDimp was hence 2.6 points reduction; the corresponding group MCIDdet was 1.2 points increase (0.5 minus -0.7). The area under the ROC curve was 0.88 for MCIDimp and 0.89 for MCIDdet (both P < 0.0001), indicating that the COMI had good discriminative ability. The cut-offs for individual improvement and deterioration, respectively, were ≤2.2 points decrease (sensitivity 81%, specificity 83%) and ≤0.3 points increase (sensitivity 83%, specificity 88%). The MCIDimp score of 2.2 points was similar to that reported in the original study (2-3 points, depending on external criterion used). The MCID det suggested that the COMI is less responsive to deterioration than to improvement, a phenomenon also reported for other spine outcome instruments. This needs further investigation in even larger patient groups. The MCIDs provide essential information for both the planning (sample size) and interpretation of the results (clinical relevance) of future clinical studies using the COMI.

AB - The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing multidimensional outcome in spine surgery. The minimal clinically important score-difference (MCID) for improvement (MCIDimp) was determined in one of the original research studies validating the instrument, but has never been confirmed in routine clinical practice. Further, the MCID for deterioration (MCIDdet) has never been investigated; indeed, this needs very large sample sizes to obtain sufficient cases with worsening. This study examined the MCIDs of the COMI in routine clinical practice. All patients undergoing surgery in our Spine Center since February 2004 were asked to complete the COMI before and 12 months after surgery. The COMI has one question each on back (neck) pain intensity, leg/buttock (arm/shoulder) pain intensity, function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality of life, work disability, and social disability, scored as a 0-10 index. At follow-up, patients also rated the global effectiveness of surgery, on a 5-point Likert scale. This was used as the external criterion ("anchor") in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses to derive cut-off scores for individual improvement and deterioration. Twelve-month follow-up questionnaires were returned by 3,056 (92%) patients. The group mean COMI score change for patients declaring that the "operation helped" was a reduction of 3.1 points; the corresponding value for those whom it "did not help" was a reduction of 0.5 points. The group MCIDimp was hence 2.6 points reduction; the corresponding group MCIDdet was 1.2 points increase (0.5 minus -0.7). The area under the ROC curve was 0.88 for MCIDimp and 0.89 for MCIDdet (both P < 0.0001), indicating that the COMI had good discriminative ability. The cut-offs for individual improvement and deterioration, respectively, were ≤2.2 points decrease (sensitivity 81%, specificity 83%) and ≤0.3 points increase (sensitivity 83%, specificity 88%). The MCIDimp score of 2.2 points was similar to that reported in the original study (2-3 points, depending on external criterion used). The MCID det suggested that the COMI is less responsive to deterioration than to improvement, a phenomenon also reported for other spine outcome instruments. This needs further investigation in even larger patient groups. The MCIDs provide essential information for both the planning (sample size) and interpretation of the results (clinical relevance) of future clinical studies using the COMI.

KW - COMI

KW - Outcome

KW - Spine surgery

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68549094484&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=68549094484&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00586-009-0931-y

DO - 10.1007/s00586-009-0931-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 19296136

AN - SCOPUS:68549094484

VL - 18

JO - European Spine Journal

JF - European Spine Journal

SN - 0940-6719

IS - SUPPL. 3

ER -