Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become an important part of routine auditing of outcomes in spinal surgery in the UK. PROMs can be used to help assess the quality of care provided by surgical units by determining the comparative health status of patients, before and after surgery. This study was designed to review the PROMs used to assess outcomes in spinal surgery and to determine if they are fit for the purpose.

Methods

A systematic literature search was undertaken to identify studies that reported PROMs data following lumbar spinal surgery. The PROMs that were used in each study were recorded and a separate search was undertaken to determine the evidence regarding the validity of each measure.

Results

The initial search identified 1142 abstracts, which were reduced through de-duplication, filtering and review to 58 articles, which were retrieved and reviewed in full. The search identified that the majority of studies used either the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36, Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and EQ-5D along with visual analogue scales or numeric rating scales for back and leg pain.

Conclusions

The consistent use of PROMs supports the comparison of outcomes from different studies, although there was minimal evidence regarding the specificity and sensitivity of these measures for use with lumbar spinal patients. Our review highlights the need to determine a consensus regarding the use and reporting of outcome measures within the lumbar spine literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NHS Commissioning D14 Complex Spinal Surgery (2014) http://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/npc-crg/group-d/d14/. Accessed 22 Dec 2014

  2. Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E et al (2009) On behalf of School of the SWISSspine Registry Group SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J. 18:851–861

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Röder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF, Grob D, Aebi M (2005) SSE Spine tango—content, workflow, set-up. www.eurospine.org—Spine tango. Eur Spine J 14:920–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. British Spine Registry (2014) http://bsrcentre.org.uk/. Accessed 28 Nov 2014

  5. The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fairbank J, Pynsent P (2000) The Oswestry disability index. Spine 25:2940–2953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. NHS Commissioning Board (2013). D14 Commissioning policy. http://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/d14-comp-spinal-surg.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2014

  8. Jenkinson C, Stewart-Brown S, Peterson S, Paice C (1999) Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. J Epidemiol Commun Health 53:46–50

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Grevitt M, Khazim R, Webb J, Mulholland R, Shepperd J (1997) The short form-36 health survey questionnaire in spine surgery. J Bone Jt Surgery 79(B(1)):48–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mueller B, Carreon LY, Glassman SD (2013) Comparison of the EuroQol-5D with the Oswestry Disability Index, back and leg pain scores in patients with degenerative lumbar spine pathology. Spine 38:757–761

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8:141–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine 25:3115–3124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zanoli G, Stromqvist B, Jonsson B (2001) Visual analog scales for interpretation of back and leg pain intensity in patients operated for degenerative lumbar spine disorders. Spine 26:2375–2380

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M (2011) Measures of adult pain. Arthritis Care Res 63:S240–S252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fairbank J, Couper J, Davies J, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Beurskens A, deVet HCW, Koke AJA (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher K, Johnson M (1997) Validation of the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire, its sensitivity as a measure of change following treatment and its relationship with other aspects of the chronic pain experience. Physiother Theory Pract 13:67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL et al (1996) The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: conceptualization and development. J Clin Epidemiol 49:151–161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB et al (1981) The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 19:787–805

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Williamson A, Hoggart B (2005) Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs 14:798–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz J (2005) Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine 30:1331–1334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Deyo R, Battie M, Beurskens A, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2003–2013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):367–373

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stucki G, Daltroy LH, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN (1996) Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 21:796–803

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pratt RK, Fairbank JC, Virr A (2002) The reliability of the Shuttle Walking Test, the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, the Oxford Spinal Stenosis Score, and the Oswestry Disability Index in the assessment of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine 27(1):84–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Comer CM, Conaghan PG, Tennant A (2011) Internal construct validity of the Swiss Spine Stenosis Questionnaire: Rasch analysis of a disease-specific outcome measure for lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(23):1969–1976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21(6):741–748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sarasqueta C, Gabaldon O, Iza I, Béland F, Paz PM (2005) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the NASS outcomes instrument in Spanish patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 14(6):586–594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Stoll T, Huber E, Bachmann S, Baumeler HR, Mariacher S, Rutz M, Schneider W, Spring H, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G, Steiner W (2004) Validity and sensitivity to change of the NASS questionnaire for patients with cervical spine disorders. Spine 29(24):2851–2855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Beyer F et al (2013) Percutaneous interspinous spacer versus open decompression: a 2-year follow-up of clinical outcome and quality of life. Eur Spine J 22(9):2015–2021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kleinstueck FS et al (2012) To fuse or not to fuse in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: do baseline symptoms help provide the answer? Eur Spine J 21(2):268–275

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kleinstueck FS et al (2011) The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain. Eur Spine J 20(7):1166–1173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Sobottke R et al (2010) Clinical outcomes and quality of life 1 year after open microsurgical decompression or implantation of an interspinous stand-alone spacer. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 53(4):179–183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Grob D et al (2010) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J 19(2):297–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kleinstück FS et al (2009) The influence of preoperative back pain on the outcome of lumbar decompression surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(11):1198–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, Leidy NK, Patrick DL, Petrie CD (2009) Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health 12:1075–1083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Stratford P, Binkley J (1997) Measurement properties of the RM-18: a modified version of the Roland–Morris Disability Scale. Spine 22:2416–2421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Patrick D, Deyo R, Atlas S et al (1995) Assessing health-related quality of life inpatients with sciatica. Spine 20:1899–1909

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Underwood M, Barnett A, Vicker M (1999) Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures. Spine 24:1104–1112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN (2003) Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? Spine 28:607–615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Garratt A, Moffett J, Farrin A (2001) Responsiveness of generic and specific measures of health outcome in low back pain. Spine 26:71–77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rihn JA, Berven S, Allen T, Phillips FM, Currier BL, Glassman SD et al (2009) Defining value in spine care. Am J Med Qual 24:4S–14S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Haefeli M, Elfering A, Aebi M, Freeman BJ, Fritzell P, Guimaraes Consciencia J et al (2008) What comprises a good outcome in spinal surgery? A preliminary survey among spine surgeons of the SSE and European spine patients. Eur Spine J 17:104–116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, Mendenhall SK, Glassman SD, McGirt MJ (2014) Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of lumbar surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J. 14:2885–2891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Clement RC, Welander A, Stowell C, Cha TD, Chen JL, Davies M, Fairbank JC, Foley KT, Gehrchen M, Hagg O, Jacobs WC (2015) A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain. Acta orthopaedica. 86(5):523–533

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, Bellamy N, Brandenburg N, Carr DB, Cleeland C, Dionne R, Farrar JT, Galer BS, Hewitt DJ, Jadad AR, Katz NP, Kramer LD, Manning DC, McCormick CG, McDermott MP, McGrath P, Quessy S, Rappaport BA, Robinson JP, Royal MA, Simon L, Stauffer JW, Stein W, Tollett J, Witter J (2003) Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 106:337–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Exeter Spine Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK

    O. M. Stokes

  2. Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK

    A. A. Cole & L. M. Breakwell

  3. ICON PRO, Oxford, UK

    A. J. Lloyd

  4. Medtronic Spine and Biologics, Watford, UK

    C. M. Leonard

  5. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK

    M. Grevitt

Authors
  1. O. M. Stokes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. A. Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. M. Breakwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. J. Lloyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. M. Leonard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Grevitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. M. Stokes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stokes, O.M., Cole, A.A., Breakwell, L.M. et al. Do we have the right PROMs for measuring outcomes in lumbar spinal surgery?. Eur Spine J 26, 816–824 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4938-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4938-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation