https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0210-1396
Correction
11 Mar 2024: Mjåset C, Zwart JA, Kolstad F, Solberg T, Grotle M (2024) Correction: Clinical improvement after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy; A comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures during 12-month follow-up. PLOS ONE 19(3): e0300610. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300610 View correction
Figures
Abstract
Object
Although many patients report clinical improvement after surgery due to degenerative cervical myelopathy, the aim of intervention is to stop progression of spinal cord dysfunction. We wanted to provide estimates and assess achievement rates of Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) at 3- and 12-month follow-up for Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain (NRS-AP) and neck pain (NRS-NP), Euro-Qol (EQ-5D-3L), and European Myelopathy Score (EMS).
Methods
614 degenerative cervical myelopathy patients undergoing surgery responded to Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) prior to, 3 and 12 months after surgery. External criterion was the Global Perceived Effect Scale (1–7), defining MCID as “slightly better”, “much better” and “completely recovered”. MCID estimates with highest sensitivity and specificity were calculated by Receiver Operating Curves for change and percentage change scores in the whole sample and in anterior and posterior procedural groups.
Results
The NDI and NRS-NP percentage change scores were the most accurate PROMs with a MCID of 16%. The change score for NDI and percentage change scores for NDI, NRS-AP and NRS-NP were slightly higher in the anterior procedure group compared to the posterior procedure group, while remaining PROM estimates were similar across procedure type. The MCID achievement rates at 12-month follow-up ranged from 51% in EMS to 62% in NRS-NP.
Conclusion
The NDI and NRS-NP percentage change scores were the most accurate PROMs to measure clinical improvement after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. We recommend using different cut-off estimates for anterior and posterior approach procedures. A MCID achievement rate of 60% or less must be interpreted in the perspective that the main goal of surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy is to prevent worsening of the condition.
Citation: Mjåset C, Zwart J-A, Kolstad F, Solberg T, Grotle M (2022) Clinical improvement after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy; A comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures during 12-month follow-up. PLoS ONE 17(3): e0264954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264954
Editor: Michael G. Fehlings, University of Toronto, CANADA
Received: August 6, 2021; Accepted: February 18, 2022; Published: March 8, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Mjåset et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The data cannot be shared publicly since it contains potentially identifiable personal information about the participants. A record is kept on a secure server at Oslo University Hospital. Data access through the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NRSS) located in Tromsø, Norway, can be obtained for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The registry can be contaced by email (nakkerygg@unn.no) or phone (+47 777 54287). Current managing director is Kjetil Samuelsen. More information can be found on the website (www.nakkeryggreg.no).
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) describes a range of conditions in the cervical spine causing cord compression and neurological dysfunction [1]. There is current lack of evidence for nonoperative management in terms of preventing neurological deterioration, although physical rehabilitation and close observation can be considered in mild to asymptomatic cases. For moderate to severe cases, individualized surgical treatment is recommended [2–4]. Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) and Anterior Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (ACDA) are frequently used in patients with disc herniation, while posterior approach procedures are well-established treatments options for patients with posterior and/or multi-level spinal cord compression [5]. In cases where symptoms are caused by spinal cord compression due to cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, no treatment consensus is obtained and various anterior and posterior approach procedures are currently applied [6, 7].
The aim of surgery has traditionally been to stop progression of spinal cord dysfunction symptoms. However, recent studies have shown that many patients report improvement post intervention both regarding functionality and disability, as well as quality-of-life outcomes [2, 8]. Depending on PROMs used, severity of preoperative disease and length of follow-up, improvement rates range from around 20 to 80% [9, 10].
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are commonly used to measure clinical improvement or worsening in spine literature. In combination with the concept of Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), defined as the smallest change in an outcome score that is clinically beneficial within a patient group [11], optimal cut-off estimates for an individual PROM can be assessed [12, 13]. The traditional method is to assess the MCID change score, or the delta value. However, since the interpretation of a change score is dependent on the baseline score, the percentage change score can provide a more representative result at group level [14]. To date, MCID estimates for PROM percentage change scores have not been reported for DCM patients undergoing surgery. Further, there is current lack of evidence in terms of which PROMs are the more accurate in capturing changes in health status among these patients and whether results differ across surgical approach.
The purpose of this study was to estimate MCID for frequently used PROMs 3 and 12 months after surgery for DCM; NDI, Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain (NRS-AP) and neck pain (NRS-NP), Euro-Qol (EQ-5D-3L), and European Myelopathy Score (EMS). A secondary aim was to report achievement rates of MCID through 12 months of follow-up. The MCID estimates are reported for change scores and percentage changes scores for the whole sample, as well as for anterior and posterior approach procedural groups.
Materials and methods
Data collection
All data were collected through the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine) which is a government funded comprehensive clinical registry. Participation in NORspine is not required for a patient to gain access to the health care, or for payment/reimbursement to a provider. All Norwegian health care providers offering cervical spine surgery (six public hospitals and three private clinics) report to NORspine. The proportion of operated patients reported to the registry was 75–78% over the study period [15].
Our research protocol was approved by the Norwegian Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics Midt (2014/344). Informed consent was obtained from all patients before entering the registry.
Design
This is a multicenter observational study with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. Results are reported consistent with the Strengthening The Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement [16], and methods are in accordance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) recommendations [12].
Eligibility criteria
A cohort of 614 patients undergoing surgery for DCM between January 2011 and August 2016 were found to be eligible (Fig 1). Exclusion criteria were: 1) prior surgery the index level; and 2) patients undergoing combined anterior and posterior approach, since these patients commonly are selected on a case-by-case basis [17]. Of the 614 patients, 371 underwent either ACDF (363, 98%) or ACDA (8, 2%), and 243 patients underwent posterior approach procedures, such as laminectomy with or without fusion, hemilaminectomy or laminoplasty.
Exclusion criteria for patients included in the study with follow-up rates.
Measurements
At admission for surgery (baseline), patients complete the NORspine questionnaire which cover demographics, location and extent of pain and PROMs. During the hospital stay, the surgeon records data concerning diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA), surgical treatment and comorbidity on a separate form. Under ‘indication for operation’ the surgeon can checkmark if he/she considers the patient to have myelopathy based on clinical assessment and radiological findings. To avoid selective reporting, the 3- and 12-month follow-up is conducted by the NORspine central registry unit without involvement from treating hospitals. After surgery, a questionnaire identical to that used at baseline is distributed by mail to every registered patient. One reminder questionnaire is sent to those who do not respond. The following PROMs are collected:
- Neck Disability Index (NDI): a patient-completed questionnaire focusing on the patient’s functional status and scores ranging from 0 (no disability) to 100 (greatest disability) [18].
- Numeric Rating Scale for arm (NRS-AP) and neck pain (NRS-NP): a scale that assesses pain level ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst conceivable pain) [19].
- EuroQoL (EQ-5D-3L): a generic measure assessing health-related quality of life with scores ranging from -0.59 (worse than death) to 1 (perfect health) [20].
- European Myelopathy Score (EMS): a patient-based questionnaire derived for assessing spinal cord function. Scoring is between 5 (severe deficit) and 18 (no symptoms) [21].
The Global Perceived Effect scale (GPE) was in the present study used as an external criterion for defining MCID. The GPE measures patient-reported treatment outcome through one single question and seven answer choices; “completely recovered”, “much improved”, “slightly improved”, “unchanged, “slightly worse”, “much worse” and “worse than ever” [22]. Patients reporting to be “completely recovered”, “much improved” or “slightly improved” (1–3) were classified as having achieved a MCID. Those who considered themselves to be “unchanged” or worse (4–7) were classified as not improved.
Statistics
All statistical analyses were performed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 26). Continuous variables were reported as means and standard deviations and categorical variables as numbers and percentages. Differences were evaluated by Chi-square test for categorical variables and by t-tests for continuous variables. PROM change scores were obtained by subtracting the follow-up score from the baseline score. The percentage change score was calculated by dividing the change score with the baseline score and multiplying by 100. To be able to calculate the EQ-5D-3L percentage change score we converted the value range from -0.6 to 1.0 into a relative score from 0 to 100.
The correlations between the GPE scale and the different PROMs were analyzed using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Receiver Operating Curves (ROCs) were used to assess discriminative ability of each PROM and to define the optimal cut-off with the highest sensitivity and specificity. ROCs were made by plotting the sensitivity against (1 –specificity) for each possible MCID cut-off estimate. The sensitivity refers to the probability of correctly classifying an individual replying “slightly improved” or better (1–3) according to the PROM score. Correspondingly, the specificity refers to the probability of correctly classifying a patient reporting to be “unchanged” or worse as having “not improved” after surgery (4–7). The area under the ROC (AUC) with 95% confidence interval (CI) describes the test’s accuracy of correctly classifying a case according to the anchor. The AUC is classified as “acceptable” from 0.7 to 0.8, “excellent” from 0.8 to 0.9 and “outstanding” from 0.9 to 1.0 [23]. To determine MCID cut-off estimates with highest sensitivity and specificity, the closest point to the upper left corner of the ROC-curve was calculated from the coordinates of the curve. Cut-off estimates were assessed for the whole DCM group and for both procedural groups. Lastly, proportions of patients achieving MCID for the whole group and both procedural groups were calculated using the cut-off estimates for each PROM.
Results
Respondents and baseline characteristics
Of 4229 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders in the cervical spine between January 2011 and August 2016, 614 patients were included. Of these patients, 371 underwent an anterior approach procedure, while 243 underwent a posterior approach procedure. A total of 67.9% and 70.1% of patients responded to the 3- and 12-month follow-up questionnaire, respectively (Fig 1). The non-responding patients were slightly younger (p<0.001), less likely to be retired (p<0.001), and more likely to smoke (p<0.001) (Table 1). There were no statistically significant differences in PROM scores, except for the EQ-5D-3L mean, which was lower (poorer health-related quality-of-life) among non-responders (p<0.008) (Table 1).
Baseline characteristics of the whole myelopathy group and the two procedural groups are presented in Table 2. Compared to the anterior approach procedure group, patients in the posterior approach group were more likely to be male, not working, and to be operated at a higher number of levels. Also, they had significantly higher mean age, higher mean ASA level, more comorbidity, and more severe myelopathy symptoms according to EMS.
Correlation between the PROMs and the external criterion
For all PROMs, there was a stepwise decrease in mean change scores and mean percentage change scores at 12 months for patients who reported themselves to be completely recovered, much better and slightly better compared to those reporting no change or some degree of worsening (S1 Table). A similar pattern was found for results at 3 months (obtained on request). For the whole group, the Spearman correlation coefficients ranged from 0.30 to 0.59. The NDI showed the strongest correlation with the external anchor.
AUC and MCID
We found minor differences in AUC and MCID cut-off estimates at 3 and 12 months. Therefore, further analysis of the data is presented only for the PROMs at 12-month follow-up. 3-month scores are presented in S2 Table.
The change scores of NDI, NRS-NP and the EQ-5D-3L showed acceptable AUC values (>0.70), whereas AUC values of the NRS-AP change score and EMS percentage change score were slightly lower than acceptable (0.69 and 0.68, respectively) (Table 3). Most of the AUC change score values (0.64–0.74) were similar to or lower than the corresponding AUC percentage change score value (0.68–0.77). Only for EMS, the change score AUC (0.69) was higher than the percentage change score AUC (0.68) (Table 3). The percentage change scores of the NDI and NRS-NP had the highest sensitivity and specificity.
Similar results were found for AUCs analyzed for the anterior and posterior approach groups. However, there was a tendency to lower discriminative ability for all PROMs in the posterior approach group except for EMS in which case the AUCs were higher in this group (Table 4).
Proportions of patients with clinical improvement at 12-month follow-up
In Fig 2, we present the proportions of patients that achieved a clinical improvement according to MCID estimates for percentage change scores at 12-month follow-up. Overall, NDI (59%), NRS-NP (61%) and EQ-5D-3L (59%) showed similar proportions of achieving a MCID, whereas NRS-NP (56%) and, in particular, EMS (51%) showed lower proportions of improvement. The rates were slightly higher for the anterior approach group compared to the posterior approach group for both change score and percentage change score (S3 Table).
Percentage of patients achieving improvement larger than the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) according to the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain (NRS-AP) and neck pain (NRS-NP), Euro-Quol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L) and European Myelopathy Score (EMS). Results are provided by the percentage change score from baseline to 12-month follow-up.
Discussion
This study showed that NDI and NRS-NP were the most accurate PROMs to measure MCID among patients undergoing surgery due to DCM. EQ-5D-3L also showed acceptable accuracy for both change and percentage change score. Further, achievement of clinical improvement according to the optimal MCID estimates of the investigated PROMs ranged from 51% to 62%, depending on type of PROM, type of MCID and surgical approach.
Although there are several studies investigating MCID for DCM patients undergoing surgery [24–28], there are no reports of percentage change scores for this patient group. In our study, the majority of the percentage change scores were more accurate than the change scores. As shown in Table 3, percentage change scores for NDI, NRS-AP and NRS-NP showed higher AUC, including higher sensitivity and specificity, compared to the change scores. For EQ-5D, the AUCs were identical, while the EMS AUC was slightly higher for the change score than for the percentage change score (0.69 vs. 0.68). Since the use of change scores for benchmarking has been criticized for not taking into account the baseline score [29–31], we recommend using percentage change scores in future research.
The observed MCID estimate of 4.3 points for the NDI 12-month change score is similar to a previous study of Kato et al., who found a cut-off estimate of 4.2 in 101 myelopathy patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty [32]. Chien et al. report a slightly higher cut-off of 6 for NDI which might be due to a very small patient sample (n = 45) [26]. Similarly, in a study of 30 DCM patients by Auffinger et al., five statistical methods used for calculation of cut-off estimates showed similar or substantially higher findings for both NDI (4.8–13.4) and NRS-NP (0.36–3.11) [25].
The accuracy of EQ-5D-3L has also been assessed in a previous study. Kato et al. reported a MCID estimate of 0.05 for EQ-5D-3L with an AUC of 0.704 [32], which is in accordance with the results in the present study. Since the accuracy of EQ-5D-3L has been found to be acceptable (>0.70) in both these studies, we recommend further use of this PROM for DCM patients.
Several studies have reported MCID estimates for degenerative neck surgery patients. However, in many of the investigated cohorts there have been a mix of radiculopathy and myelopathy patients [33–35]. We argue that it is necessary to distinguish between myelopathy and radiculopathy patient cohorts considering the smaller amount of expected improvement among DCM patients. For example, Carreon et al., who analyzed a mixed sample of 505 patients, reported higher MCID estimates than our study for both NDI (7.5 vs. 4.3), NRS-AP (2.5 vs. 0.5) and NRS-NP (2.5 vs. 0.5) [34].
As far as we know, no previous study has presented MCID estimates for EMS and NRS-AP in a DCM cohort.
Surgical approach
We found minor differences in accuracy of NDI and NRS-NP across patients undergoing anterior versus posterior surgical procedures. However, there was a tendency to lower discriminative ability for NDI, the two NRS scores and EQ-5D-3L in the posterior approach group (Table 4). In each group, NDI and NRS-NP showed the best discriminative ability.
The MCID estimates for NDI, NRS-AP and NRS-NP were lower in the posterior approach group compared to the anterior approach group. This may indicate that posterior approach patients, which were older and had multilevel degenerative disease, were satisfied with less improvement compared to the younger and healthier patients in the anterior approach group. These results confirm that it is reasonable to analyze these two surgical groups separately. They also suggest that the interpretation of change and percentage change scores of PROMs should be different across anterior and posterior procedures.
Proportion of patients achieving MCID
The proportion of DCM patients that achieved MCID varied between 51% and 61% for the percentage change score. This is in line with a previous study by Stull et al. which reported that 40 to 61% achieve MCID in a sample of 53 DCM patients [9]. Although Stull et al. found little or no difference in achievement rates between radiculopathy and myelopathy patients, others have shown that the proportion of patients achieving a MCID is substantially higher among radiculopathy patients. Applying a cut-off estimate of 15 for NDI, two recent studies found NDI success rates of 80–92% for patients undergoing ACDF or ACDA [36, 37].
Limitations and strengths
GPE is a self-reported scale and not an objective anchor. This represents the main limitation of our study as global scale ratings tend to be influenced by the current health status of the patient [22]. However, no alternative gold standard currently exists, and the GPE is still the most frequently used anchor in scientific literature [38–42].
The main inclusion criterion for all patients was that the operating surgeon had made a checkmark for myelopathy (yes/no) in the post-operative questionnaire under “indication for operation”. This response represents a subjective judgement based on patient history, clinical features, and radiological findings. Since we have no objective reference for evaluating the accuracy of the surgeons’ judgment, misclassifications could exist.
The non-respondent rate of approximately 30% is usually regarded as acceptable for a spine registry [43]. As some of the baseline characteristics of the non-respondents have been associated with poorer outcomes [44], this might still be considered a selection bias especially since we are estimating the proportion of patients achieving MCID. However, this should be of less importance when assessing actual cut-off estimates across a wide range of outcomes. Two previous studies found no differences in outcome when comparing respondents and non-respondents at follow-up, though both had slightly lower non-respondent rates [45, 46].
A major strength of this study is the large sample size of surgical patients in daily clinical practice and the high coverage rate [15] indicating a high external validity of our results.
Conclusion
NDI and NRS-NP were the most accurate PROMs to measure a clinical improvement according to MCID estimates 12 months after surgery for DCM. Also, EQ-5D-3L showed acceptable discriminative ability.
Percentage change scores were more accurate than change scores, hence, we recommend using percentage change cut-off estimates in future studies. The cut-off estimates and MCID achievement rates were also slightly higher for the anterior approach group compared to the posterior approach group indicating that separate cut-off estimates should be used for each surgical approach.
An achievement of a MCID of 60% or less among DCM patients must be interpreted in the perspective that the main goal of surgery is to prevent worsening of the condition.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Mean scores with standard deviation of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures at 12 months for the whole myelopathy group according to the Global Perceived Effect Scale.
Spearman, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient; Neck Disability Index (0–100); SD, Standard Deviation; NRS-AP, Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain (0–10); NRS-NP, Numeric Rating Scale for neck pain (0–10), EQ-5D-3L, Health-Related Quality-of-Life by EuroQol (-0.4–1.0), EMS, European Myelopathy Score (5–18).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264954.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Area under the curve and cut-off estimates for “Minimal Clinically Important Difference” for all Patient-Reported Outcome Measures at 3 months.
NDI, Neck Disability Index (0–100); AUC, Area Under the Curve, NRS-AP, Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain (0–10), NRS-NP, Numeric Rating Scale for neck pain (0–10), EQ-5D-3L, Health-Related Quality-of-Life by EuroQol (-0.4–1.0); EMS, European Myelopathy Score (5–18).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264954.s002
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Proportion of patients with an improvement larger than “Minimal Clinically Important Difference” at 12-months follow-up according to Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.
NDI, Neck Disability Index (0–100), NRS-AP, Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain (0–10), NRS-NP, Numeric Rating Scale for neck pain (0–10), EQ-5D-3L, Health-Related Quality-of-Life by EuroQol (-0.4–1.0), EMS, European Myelopathy Score (5–18).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264954.s003
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like thank Andrew Malcolm Garratt at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health for helping with the calculation of the EQ-5D-3L percentage change score.
References
- 1. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Epidemiology, Genetics, and Pathogenesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(12):E675–93.
- 2. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, et al. 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. pmid:24048552
- 3. Rhee JM, Shamji MF, Erwin WM, Bransford RJ, Yoon ST, Smith JS, et al. Nonoperative management of cervical myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S55–67. pmid:23963006
- 4. Fehlings MG, Barry S, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold P, Massicotte EM, et al. Anterior versus posterior surgical approaches to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy: outcomes of the prospective multicenter AOSpine North America CSM study in 264 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(26):2247–52. pmid:24108289
- 5. Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Chapman JR, Brodke DS. Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(22 Suppl 1):S173–82. pmid:23962995
- 6. Yoshii T, Egawa S, Hirai T, Kaito T, Mori K, Koda M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing anterior decompression with fusion and posterior laminoplasty for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. J Orthop Sci. 2020;25(1):58–65. pmid:30905611
- 7. Nakashima H, Tetreault L, Nagoshi N, Nouri A, Arnold P, Yukawa Y, et al. Comparison of Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament Versus Other Forms of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Results from the Prospective, Multicenter AOSpine CSM-International Study of 479 Patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(5):370–8. pmid:26935459
- 8. Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, Albanese V, Alvarado M, Arnold P, et al. A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(17):1322–8.
- 9. Stull JD, Goyal DKC, Mangan JJ, Divi SN, McKenzie JC, Casper DS, et al. The Outcomes of Patients With Neck Pain Following ACDF: A Comparison of Patients With Radiculopathy, Myelopathy, or Mixed Symptomatology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(21):1485–90. pmid:32796460
- 10. Goh GS, Liow MHL, Ling ZM, Soh RCC, Guo CM, Yue WM, et al. Severity of Preoperative Myelopathy Symptoms Affects Patient-reported Outcomes, Satisfaction, and Return to Work After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(10):649–56.
- 11. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15. pmid:2691207
- 12. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49. pmid:20169472
- 13. Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159–70. pmid:29550964
- 14. Kaiser L. Adjusting for baseline: change or percentage change? Stat Med. 1989;8(10):1183–90. pmid:2682909
- 15.
Solberg T, Olsen L, Berglund M. Årsrapport for 2018 med plan for forbedringstiltak. Tromsø, Norway: Nasjonalt kvalitetsregister for ryggkirugi (NKR); 2019.
- 16. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7. pmid:18064739
- 17. Kim PK, Alexander JT. Indications for circumferential surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2006;6(6 Suppl):299s–307s. pmid:17097550
- 18. MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, Blanchard A, Etruw E, McAlpine C, et al. Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39(5):400–17. pmid:19521015
- 19.
Jensen MP, Karoly P. Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. Handbook of pain assessment, 3rd ed. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2011. pp. 19–44.
- 20. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5(2):141–54. pmid:8733106
- 21.
Herdmann J, Linzbach M, Krzan M, Dvorák J, Bock W. The European Myelopathy Score. In: Bauer B, Brock M, Klinger M, editors. Advances in Neurosurgery. 22. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1994. pp. 266–8.
- 22. Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HC, Hancock MJ. 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. 2010;63(7):760–6 e1. pmid:20056385
- 23.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. NY: John Wiley and Sons; 2000.
- 24. Badhiwala JH, Witiw CD, Nassiri F, Akbar MA, Jaja B, Wilson JR, et al. Minimum Clinically Important Difference in SF-36 Scores for Use in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(21):E1260–E6.
- 25. Auffinger BM, Lall RR, Dahdaleh NS, Wong AP, Lam SK, Koski T, et al. 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. pmid:23826290
- 26. Chien A, Lai DM, Cheng CH, Wang SF, Hsu WL, Wang JL. Responsiveness of the Chinese versions of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire and Neck Disability Index in postoperative patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(17):1315–21. pmid:26020849
- 27. 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. pmid:26502097
- 28. Kato S, Oshima Y, Matsubayashi Y, Taniguchi Y, Tanaka S, Takeshita K. Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy Patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(10):691–7. pmid:30395093
- 29. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008;9(2):105–21. pmid:18055266
- 30. Fekete TF, Haschtmann D, Kleinstuck FS, Porchet F, Jeszenszky D, Mannion AF. What level of pain are patients happy to live with after surgery for lumbar degenerative disorders? Spine J. 2016;16(4 Suppl):S12–8. pmid:26850172
- 31. de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(1):131–42. pmid:17033901
- 32. Kato S, Oshima Y, Matsubayashi Y, Taniguchi Y, Tanaka S, Takeshita K. Minimum clinically important difference in outcome scores among patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(5):1234–41. pmid:30877386
- 33. Steinhaus ME, Iyer S, Lovecchio F, Khechen B, Stein D, Ross T, et al. Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit Using PROMIS CAT in Cervical Spine Surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2019;32(9):392–7. pmid:31569175
- 34. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Campbell MJ, Anderson PA. Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J. 2010;10(6):469–74. pmid:20359958
- 35. 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 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(2):154–60. pmid:23176164
- 36. Matthew FG, Burkus JK, Mark ES, Francine WS, Anne GC. Cervical disc arthroplasty: 10-year outcomes of the Prestige LP cervical disc at a single level. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine SPI. 2019;31(3):317–25.
- 37. Gornet MF, Lanman TH, Burkus JK, Hodges SD, McConnell JR, Dryer RF, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine SPI. 2017;26(6):653–67. pmid:28304237
- 38. Werner DAT, Grotle M, Gulati S, Austevoll IM, Lonne G, Nygaard OP, et al. Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(10):2650–9. pmid:28616747
- 39. Austevoll IM, Gjestad R, Grotle M, Solberg T, Brox JI, Hermansen E, et al. Follow-up score, change score or percentage change score for determining clinical important outcome following surgery? An observational study from the Norwegian registry for Spine surgery evaluating patient reported outcome measures in lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):31. pmid:30658613
- 40. Solberg T, Johnsen LG, Nygaard OP, Grotle M. Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery?: estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(2):196–201. pmid:23506164
- 41. Hermansen E, Myklebust TA, Austevoll IM, Rekeland F, Solberg T, Storheim K, et al. Clinical outcome after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with insignificant lower extremity pain. A prospective cohort study from the Norwegian registry for spine surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):36. pmid:30669998
- 42. Mjåset C, Zwart JA, Goedmakers CMW, Smith TR, Solberg TK, Grotle M. Criteria for success after surgery for cervical radiculopathy-estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures. Spine J. 2020;20(9):1413–21. pmid:32502657
- 43. van Hooff ML, Jacobs WC, Willems PC, Wouters MW, de Kleuver M, Peul WC, et al. Evidence and practice in spine registries. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(5):534–44. pmid:25909475
- 44. Mannion AF, Elfering A. Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment. Eur Spine J. 2006;15 Suppl 1:S93–108. pmid:16320033
- 45. Solberg TK, Sorlie A, Sjaavik K, Nygaard OP, Ingebrigtsen T. Would loss to follow-up bias the outcome evaluation of patients operated for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine? Acta Orthop. 2011;82(1):56–63. pmid:21189113
- 46. Hojmark K, Stottrup C, Carreon L, Andersen MO. Patient-reported outcome measures unbiased by loss of follow-up. Single-center study based on DaneSpine, the Danish spine surgery registry. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(1):282–6. pmid:26208938