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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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
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
Good CR, Auerbach JD, O’Leary PT, Schuler TC (2011) Adult spine deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 4(4):159–167
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Rost J (1990) Rasch models in latent classes: an integration of two approaches to item analysis. Appl Psychol Meas 14(3):271–282
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
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
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
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
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
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
Andrich D, Hagquist C (2012) Real and artificial differential item functioning. J Educ Behav Stat 37(3):387–416
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
Acknowledgements
Glenny Kieser for her editorial input.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-07088-5