Skip to main content

Impact of radiologic variables on item responses of ODI, SRS22 and SF-36. in adult spinal deformity patients: differential item functioning (DIF) analysis results from a multi-center database

Abstract

Purpose

To determine if responses given to each question of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS22), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires are influenced by the radiological parameters.

Methods

Patients enrolled in a multi-centre prospectively collected adult spinal deformity database who had complete SRS22, ODI and SF-36 data at baseline and at one-year follow-up were analysed. The presence of a differential item function of each question within each score in relation to radiological parameters was analysed using a mixed Rasch model with the radiological threshold value(s) determined.

Results

Of those patients analysed (n = 1745; 1406 female, average age 51.0 ± 19.8 years), 944 were surgically and 801 were non-surgically treated. For the SRS22, questions (Q) 3, 5 and 18 were sensitive to almost all radiological parameters and the overall score was found sensitive to the Cobb angle. For the ODI, Q3, 6, 9 and 10 were not sensitive to any radiologic parameters whereas Q4 and 5 were sensitive to most. In contrast, only 3 of the SF-36 items were sensitive to radiological parameters.

Conclusions

78% of the SRS-22, 60% of the ODI and 8% of the questions in the SF-36 are sensitive to radiological parameters. Sagittal imbalance is independently associated with a poor overall outcome, but affects mental status and function more than pain and self-image. The assembly of questions responsive to radiological parameters may be useful in establishing a connection between changes in radiologic parameters and HRQL.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F (2005) The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(18):2024–2029

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lafage V, Schwab F, Patel A, Hawkinson N, Farcy JP (2009) Pelvic tilt and truncal inclination: two key radiographic parameters in the setting of adults with spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(17):E599-606

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schwab FJ, Blondel B, Bess S, Hostin R, Shaffrey CI et al (2013) Radiographical spinopelvic parameters and disability in the setting of adult spinal deformity: a prospective multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(13):E803–E812

    Google Scholar 

  4. Good CR, Auerbach JD, O’Leary PT, Schuler TC (2011) Adult spine deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 4(4):159–167

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. McCarthy I, O’Brien M, Ames C, Robinson C, Errico T et al (2014) Incremental cost-effectiveness of adult spinal deformity surgery: observed quality-adjusted life years with surgery compared with predicted quality-adjusted life years without surgery. Neurosurg Focus 36(5):E3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kieser DC, Silman A, Rothenfluh DA (2019) The growing demand for adult spinal deformity surgery in England: a national health data review. JSNS 8:5

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pichelmann MA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Good CR, O’Leary PT, Sides BA (2010) Revision rates following primary adult spinal deformity surgery: six hundred forty-three consecutive patients followed-up to twenty-two years postoperative. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(2):219–226

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mok JM, Cloyd JM, Bradford DS, Hu SS, Deviren V et al (2009) Reoperation after primary fusion for adult spinal deformity: rate, reason, and timing. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(8):832–839

    Google Scholar 

  9. Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, Klineberg E, Hart RA et al (2013) Reoperation rates and impact on outcome in a large, prospective, multicenter, adult spinal deformity database: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19(4):464–470

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Glassman SD, Berven SH, Schwab FJ et al (2011) Risk-benefit assessment of surgery for adult scoliosis: an analysis based on patient age. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(10):817–824

    Google Scholar 

  11. Liu S, Schwab F, Smith JS, Klineberg E, Ames CP et al (2014) Likelihood of reaching minimal clinically important difference in adult spinal deformity: a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment. Ochsner J 14(1):67–77

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Bridwell KH, Baldus C, Berven S, Edwards C, Glassman S et al (2010) Changes in radiographic and clinical outcomes with primary treatment adult spinal deformity surgeries from two years to three- to five-years follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(20):1849–1854

    Google Scholar 

  13. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Fu KM, Scheer JK, Bess S et al (2013) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the adult spinal deformity patient. Neurosurg Clin N Am 24(2):143–156

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Boissière L, Takemoto M, Bourghli A, Vital JM, Pellisé F et al (2017) Global tilt and lumbar lordosis index: two parameters correlating with health-related quality of life scores-but how do they truly impact disability? Spine 17(4):480–488

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fujishiro T, Boissière L, Cawley DT, Larrieu D, Gille O et al (2019) Adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making score: Part 1: development and validation of a scoring system to guide the selection of treatment modalities for patients below 40 years with adult spinal deformity. Eur Spine J 28(7):1652–1660

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fujishiro T, Boissière L, Cawley DT, Larrieu D, Gille O et al (2020) Adult spinal deformity surgical decision-making score. Part 2: development and validation of a scoring system to guide the selection of treatment modalities for patients above 40 years with adult spinal deformity. Eur Spine J 29(1):45–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rost J (1990) Rasch models in latent classes: an integration of two approaches to item analysis. Appl Psychol Meas 14(3):271–282

    Google Scholar 

  18. Strobl C, Kopf J, Zeileis A (2015) Rasch trees: a new method for detecting differential item functioning in the Rasch model. Psychometrika 80:289–316

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kopf J (2013) Model-based recursive partitioning meets item response theory: New statistical methods for the detection of differential item functioning and appropriate anchor selection. PhD dissertation, Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians-University Department of Statistics

  20. Go Y, Boissiere L, Larrieu D, Bourghli A, Vital JM, Gille O et al (2017) Advantages and disadvantages of adult spinal deformity surgery and its impact on health-related quality of life. Spine Deformity 42:411–419

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kieser D, Boissière L, Ghailane S, Larrieu D, Bourghli A et al (2018) Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery: understanding the true impact on specific activities of daily living. Leban Med J 66(4):193–196

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hayashi K, Boissière L, Guevara-Villazón F, Larrieu D, Núñez-Pereira S et al (2019) Factors influencing patient satisfaction after adult scoliosis and spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 31(3):408–417

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yilgor C, Sogunmez N, Boissiere L, Yavuz Y, Obeid I et al (2017) Global alignment and proportion (GAP) score: development and validation of a new method of analyzing spinopelvic alignment to predict mechanical complications after adult spinal deformity surgery. JBJS [Am] 99(19):1661–1672

    Google Scholar 

  24. Andrich D, Hagquist C (2012) Real and artificial differential item functioning. J Educ Behav Stat 37(3):387–416

    Google Scholar 

  25. Yüksel S, Demir P, Alkan A (2019) Factors causing occurrence of artificial dif: a simulation study for dichotomous data. Commun Stat-Simul Comput 48(7):2004–2011

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Glenny Kieser for her editorial input.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. C. Kieser.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kieser, D.C., Yuksel, S., Boissiere, L. et al. Impact of radiologic variables on item responses of ODI, SRS22 and SF-36. in adult spinal deformity patients: differential item functioning (DIF) analysis results from a multi-center database. Eur Spine J 31, 1166–1173 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07088-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07088-5

Keywords

  • Spine
  • Deformity
  • Surgery
  • Scoliosis
  • Cobb