Outcome instruments to assess scoliosis surgery
- 418 Downloads
To review and summarize the current knowledge regarding the outcome measures used to evaluate scoliosis surgery.
Outcome instruments should be tested to ensure that they have adequate metric characteristics: content and construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness. In the evaluation of scoliosis, generic instruments to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) have been used, such as the SF-36 questionnaire and the EuroQol5D instrument. Nonetheless, it is preferable to use disease-specific instruments for this purpose, such as the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire and the quality of life profile for spinal deformities (QLPSD). More recently, these generic and disease-specific instruments have been complemented with the use of super-specific instruments; i.e., those assessing a single aspect of the condition or specific populations with the condition. The patients’ perception of their trunk deformity and body image has received particular attention, and several instruments are available to evaluate these aspects, such as the Walter-Reed Visual Assessment Scale (WRVAS), the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ), and the Trunk Appearance Perception Scale (TAPS). The impacts of brace use can also be measured with specific scales, including the Bad Sobernheim Stress Questionnaire (BSSQ) and the Brace Questionnaire (BrQ). The available instruments to evaluate the treatment for non-idiopathic scoliosis have not been sufficiently validated and analyzed.
Evaluation of scoliosis treatment should include the patient’s perspective, which can be obtained with the use of patient-reported outcome measures.
KeywordsScoliosis Outcome instruments
- 2.Jaeschke R, Guyatt G (1990) How to develop and validate a new quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B (ed) Quality of life assessments in clinical trials. Raven Press, New York, pp 47–57Google Scholar
- 3.US Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) (2009) Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims [Internet]. Available from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf
- 4.Streiner D, Norman G (2008) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 12.Götze C, Liljenqvist UR, Slomka A, Götze HG, Steinbeck J (2002) Quality of life and back pain: outcome 16.7 years after Harrington instrumentation. Spine 27:1456–1463 (discussion 1463)Google Scholar
- 17.Tosteson ANA, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Abdu W, Herkowitz H, Andersson G et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine 36:2061–2068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Bridwell KH, Cats-Baril W, Harrast J, Berven S, Glassman S, Farcy JP et al (2005) The validity of the SRS-22 instrument in an adult spinal deformity population compared with the Oswestry and SF-12: a study of response distribution, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. Spine 30:455–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, Sucato DJ, Sturm PF, Glassman SD et al (2010) The minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 Appearance, Activity, and Pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 35:2079–2083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Iffrig TM, Lenke LG, Blanke K (1999) Process measures and patient/parent evaluation of surgical management of spinal deformities in patients with progressive flaccid neuromuscular scoliosis (Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy and spinal muscular atrophy). Spine 24:1300–1309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 65.Kamper SJ, Ostelo RWJG, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HCW, Hancock MJ (2010) Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63:760–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar