Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis

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

Abstract

The responsiveness of an instrument measuring health-related quality of life is an important indication of its construct validity. The SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire has become the most widely used patient-reported outcome instrument in the clinical evaluation of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. The responsiveness of the SRS-22 following surgical treatment in patients with idiopathic scoliosis has not been fully assessed. The aim of this study is to evaluate this factor by calculating the minimal important differences (MIDs) of the SRS-22 Questionnaire. The study included 91 patients with idiopathic scoliosis (77 females and 14 males), who underwent surgical treatment; mean age at the time of surgery was 18.1 years. Patients completed the SRS-22 questionnaire before surgery and at a follow-up visit (mean follow-up, 45.6 months). At follow-up, patients rated their overall situation as related to before surgery with a four-point Likert scale: 1—Worse, 2—Same, 3—Better, 4—Much Better. This evaluation represented the global perceived effect (GPE) and served as the anchor criterion for calculating the MID. MIDs were calculated using two approaches. The anchor-based MID (MID-A) was defined as the mean preoperative/follow-up difference in SRS-22 scores in the group of patients who stated they were much better than before surgery (GPE = 4). Using the same anchor criterion, the optimal cut-off value able to identify patients that had clearly improved was determined on a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. In addition, the distribution-based MID (MID-D) was calculated by the standard error of measurement method. The MID-As found for the different subscales and the sum score were: pain 0.6, function 0.3, image 1.3, mental health 0.3, average sum score 0.6, and raw sum score 13.1. The cut-off values on the ROC curve were: pain 0.2, function 0.0, image 1.6, mental health 0.4, average sum score 0.4, and raw sum score 10. The MID-Ds were: pain 0.6, function 0.8, image 0.5, mental health 0.4, average sum score 0.5, and raw sum score 6.8. As was expected, the MID values differed according to the calculation method used. In light of the fact that the MID-As for the function and mental health subscales are below the measurement error of the instrument, it seems preferable to use the MID-D values for determining subscale changes. If the purpose is to analyze sum score changes (either the raw or average values), the MID-A is preferable because it includes the patient’s evaluation of the results of surgery.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alanay A, Cil A, Berk H, Acaroglu RE, Yazici M, Akcali O et al (2005) Reliability and validity of adapted Turkish Version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine 30:2464–2468. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000184366.71761.84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) Discrimination validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine 28:74–78. doi:10.1097/00007632-200301010-00017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine 28:70–73. doi:10.1097/00007632-200301010-00016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B (2003) The reliability and concurrent validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 28:63–69. doi:10.1097/00007632-200301010-00015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, Burton D, Alanay A, Bago (2006) Refinement of the SRS-22 health-related quality of life questionnaire function domain. Spine 31:593–597. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000201331.50597.ea

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2004) The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: transcultural adaptation and reliability analysis. Spine 29:1676–1680. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000132306.53942.10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJS, Izquierdo E (2006) Letter to the Editor. Re: Asher Ma; Lai, SM; Glattes CR; Burton DC;Alanay A;Bago J.—Refinement of the SRS-22 health-related quality of life questionnaire function domain. Spine, 2006, 31(5): 593-597. Spine 31:1758. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000224188.59590.0e

  8. Beaton DE (2000) Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine 25:3192–3199. doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00015

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S, Hamill C, Horton WC, Lenke LG et al (2007) Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine 32:2220–2225. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181453e22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 30:455–461. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000153393.82368.6b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ (2006) How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:69. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bunge EM, Juttman RE, de Kleuver M, van Biezen FC, de Koning HJ, NESCIO group (2007) Health-related quality of life in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis after treatment: short-term effects after brace or surgical treatment. Eur Spine J 16:83–89. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0097-9

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cheung KM, Senkoylu A, Alanay A, Genc Y, Lau S, Luk KD (2007) Reliability and concurrent validity of the adapted Chinese version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine 32:1141–1145. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000261562.48888.e3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Climent JM, Bago J, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E (2005) Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22). Patient Questionnaire. Spine 30:705–709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:541–546. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group (2002) Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 77:371–383

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

  18. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Oden A, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group (2002) Simplifying outcome measurement. Evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for low back pain. Spine 27:1213–1222. doi:10.1097/00007632-200206010-00014

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hashimoto H, Sase T, Arai Y, Maruyama T, Isobe K, Shouno Y (2007) Validation of a Japanese version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire among idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan. Spine 32:E141–E146. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000255220.47077.33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jordan K, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Croft P (2006) A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 59:45–52. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.03.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lenke LG, Betz RR, Harms J, Bridwell kh, Clments DH, Lowe TG et al (2001) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a new classification to determine extent of spinal arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg 83-A:1169–1181

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Monticone M, Carabolona R, Negrini S (2004) Reliability of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire (Italian version) in mild adolescent vertebral deformities. Eura Medicophys 40:191–197

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schünemann HJ, Akl EA, Guyatt GH (2006) Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician’s perspective. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:62. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Van del Roer N, Ostelo RWJG, Bekkering GE, Van Tulder MW, De Vet HCW (2006) Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with non-specific low back pain. Spine 31:578–582. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000201293.57439.47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van Tulder M, Malmivaara A, Hayden J, Koes B (2007) Statistical significance versus clinical importance. Spine 32:1785–1790. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3180b9ef49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors want to acknowledge Celine Cavallo for translating and editing the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Bagó.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bagó, J., Pérez-Grueso, F.J.S., Les, E. et al. Minimal important differences of the SRS-22 Patient Questionnaire following surgical treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 18, 1898–1904 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1066-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1066-x

Keywords

Navigation