Advertisement

Clinical Assessment Tools

  • Jian Guan
  • Zoher GhogawalaEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The prevalence of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) in the population results in an outsized impact on global health. DCM is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in the world. It is associated with a significant decline in patient-reported quality of life. Evaluation of patients with DCM is complex, frequently involving a combination of physical examination, electrophysiological testing, and advanced imaging. An increasingly important component of the outcome of treatment involves the use of clinical assessment tools, sometimes referred to as “patient-reported outcomes.” A vast array of clinical assessment tools exist – a recent review identified over 50 unique instruments. In this chapter, we will discuss these tools, both their basic overarching characteristics, and some of the details of more commonly used assessments.

Keywords

Clinical assessment tools EQ-5D SF-36 mJOA NDI Nurick grade 

References

  1. 1.
    Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, Vaccaro AR, Brodke DS, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, Woodard EJ, Banco RJ, Chapman JR, Janssen ME, Bono CM, Sasso RC, Dekutoski MB, Gokaslan ZL. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(18):1651–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of cervical spine surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J. 2015;15(6):1203–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghogawala Z, Benzel EC, Heary RF, Riew KD, Albert TJ, Butler WE, Barker FG 2nd, Heller JG, McCormick PC, Whitmore RG, Freund KM, Schwartz JS. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy surgical trial: randomized, controlled trial design and rationale. Neurosurgery. 2014;75(4):334–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nayak NR, Coats JM, Abdullah KG, Stein SC, Malhotra NR. Tracking patient-reported outcomes in spinal disorders. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6(Suppl 19):S490–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Whitmore RG, Schwartz JS, Simmons S, Stein SC, Ghogawala Z. Performing a cost analysis in spine outcomes research: comparing ventral and dorsal approaches for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2012;70(4):860–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ueda H, Cutler HS, Guzman JZ, Cho SK. Current trends in the use of patient-reported outcome instruments in degenerative cervical spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2016;6(3):242–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Whitmore RG, Ghogawala Z, Petrov D, Schwartz JS, Stein SC. Function outcome instruments used for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: interscale correlation and prediction of preference-based quality of life. Spine J. 2013;13(8):902–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Auffinger B, Lam S, Shen J, Thaci B, Roitberg BZ. Usefulness of minimum clinically important difference for assessing patients with subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease: statistical versus substantial clinical benefit. Acta Neurochir. 2013;155(12):2345–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cleland JA, Childs JD, Whitman JM. Psychometric properties of the neck disability index and numeric pain rating scale in patients with mechanical neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(1):69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hahn EA, Bode RK, Du H, Cella D. Evaluating linguistic equivalence of patient-reported outcomes in a cancer clinical trial. Clin Trials. 2006;3(3):280–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Watanabe K, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Hasegawa K, Hirano T, Endo N, Cheh G, Kim YJ, Hensley M, Stobbs G, Koester L. Cross-cultural comparison of the Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument between American and Japanese idiopathic scoliosis patients: are there differences? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(24):2711–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diehr P, Chen L, Patrick D, Feng Z, Yasui Y. Reliability, effect size, and responsiveness of health status measures in the design of randomized and cluster-randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26(1):45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mark TL, Johnson G, Fortner B, Ryan K. The benefits and challenges of using computer-assisted symptom assessments in oncology clinics: results of a qualitative assessment. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2008;7(5):401–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Choudhri TF, Eck JC, Sharan A, Groff MW, Wang JC, Dhall SS, Kaiser MG. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(1):7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karanicolas PJ, Bhandari M, Kreder H, Moroni A, Richardson M, Walter SD, Norman GR, Guyatt GH, Collaboration for Outcome Assessment in Surgical Trials (COAST) Musculoskeletal Group. Evaluating agreement: conducting a reliability study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 3):99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ravindra VM, Guan J, Holland CM, Dailey AT, Schmidt MH, Godzik J, Hood RS, Ray WZ, Bisson EF. Vitamin D status in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparison of fusion rates and patient outcome measures: a preliminary experience. J Neurosurg Sci. 2016.; Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Devlin NJ, Parkin D, Browne J. Patient-reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analyzing and reporting EQ-5D data. Health Econ. 2010;19(8):886–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18:154–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xiao R, Miller JA, Lubelski D, Alberts JL, Mroz TE, Benzel EC, Krishaney AA, Machado AG. Quality of life outcomes following cervical decompression for coexisting Parkinson’s disease and cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2016;16(11):1358–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ware JE Jr, Shelbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ware JE, Kosinski M. Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: a response. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(5):405–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baron R, Elashaal A, Germon T, Hobart J. Measuring outcomes in cervical spine surgery: think twice before using the SF-36. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(22):2575–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Auffinger BM, Lall RR, Dahdaleh NS, Wong AP, Lam SK, Koski T, Fessler RG, Smith ZA. Measuring surgical outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: assessment of minimum clinically important difference. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord. 1991;4(3):286–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kopjar B, Tetreault L, Kalsi-Ryan S, Fehlings M. Psychometric properties of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;49(1):E23–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tetreault L, Nouri A, Kopjar B, Côté P, Fehlings MG. The minimum clinically important difference of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic association scale in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(21):1653–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1991;14:409–15.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, Blanchard A, Etruw E, McAlpine C, Goldsmith CH. Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39(5):400–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972;95:87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Holly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA, Groff MW, Heary RF, Kaiser MG, Mummaneni PV, Ryken TC, Choudhri TF, Vresilovic EJ, Resnick DK, Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Functional outcomes assessment for cervical degenerative disease. J Neuosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):238–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Alan L. and Jacqueline Stuart Spine Center, Department of NeurosurgeryLahey Hospital and Medical CenterBurlingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryLahey Hospital and Medical CenterBurlingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of NeurosurgeryTufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations