Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal 1/2012

01.01.2012 | Original Article

Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck

verfasst von: C. D. Fankhauser, U. Mutter, E. Aghayev, A. F. Mannion

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-orientated outcome questionnaires are essential to evaluate treatment success. To compare different treatments, hospitals, and surgeons, standardised questionnaires are required. The present study examined the validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measurement Index for neck pain (COMI-neck), a short, multidimensional outcome instrument.

Methods

Questionnaires were completed by patients with degenerative problems of the cervical spine undergoing cervical disc arthroplasty before (N = 89) and 3 months after (N = 75) surgery. The questionnaires comprised the EuroQol-Five Dimension (EQ-5D), the North American Spine Society Cervical Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument (NASS-cervical) and the COMI-neck.

Results

The COMI and NASS-cervical scores displayed no notable floor or ceiling effects at any time point whereas for the EQ-5D, the highest or lowest values were reached in around 32.5% of patients at follow-up. With one exception (symptom-specific well-being), the individual COMI items and the COMI summary score correlated to the expected extent (R = 0.4–0.8) with the scores of the chosen reference questionnaires. The area under the curve (AUC) generated by ROC analysis was significantly higher for the COMI (0.96) than for any other instrument/subscale when self reported treatment outcome was used as the external criterion, dichotomised as “good” (operation helped a lot/helped) versus “poor” (operation helped only a little/didn’t help/made things worse). The COMI had a high effect size (standardised response mean; SRM) (2.34) for the good global outcome group and a low SRM for the poor outcome group (0.34). The EQ-5D and the NASS-cervical lacked this ability to differentiate between the two groups, showing less distinct SRMs for good and poor outcome groups.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that the COMI-neck is a valid and responsive questionnaire in the population of patients examined. Further investigations should examine its applicability in other patient groups with less severe neck pain or undergoing other treatment modalities.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Fejer R, Kyvik K, Hartvigsen J (2006) The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15:834–848PubMedCrossRef Fejer R, Kyvik K, Hartvigsen J (2006) The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15:834–848PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Borghouts J, Koes B, Vondeling H, Bouter L (1999) Cost-of-illness of neck pain in The Netherlands in 1996. Pain 80:629–636PubMedCrossRef Borghouts J, Koes B, Vondeling H, Bouter L (1999) Cost-of-illness of neck pain in The Netherlands in 1996. Pain 80:629–636PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3100–3103CrossRef Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3100–3103CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Strömqvist B (2002) Evidence-based lumbar spine surgery. The role of national registration. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 73:34–39PubMed Strömqvist B (2002) Evidence-based lumbar spine surgery. The role of national registration. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 73:34–39PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Block A, Ohnmeiss D, Guyer R, Rashbaum R, Hochschuler S (2001) The use of presurgical psychological screening to predict the outcome of spine surgery. Spine J 1:274–282PubMedCrossRef Block A, Ohnmeiss D, Guyer R, Rashbaum R, Hochschuler S (2001) The use of presurgical psychological screening to predict the outcome of spine surgery. Spine J 1:274–282PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Carragee E (2001) Psychological screening in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Clin J Pain 17:215–219PubMedCrossRef Carragee E (2001) Psychological screening in the surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Clin J Pain 17:215–219PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Junge A, Dvorak J, Ahrens S (1995) Predictors of bad and good outcomes of lumbar disc surgery. A prospective clinical study with recommendations for screening to avoid bad outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:460–468CrossRef Junge A, Dvorak J, Ahrens S (1995) Predictors of bad and good outcomes of lumbar disc surgery. A prospective clinical study with recommendations for screening to avoid bad outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:460–468CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Luca A, Mutter U, Mannion A (2010) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J 19:297–306PubMedCrossRef Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Luca A, Mutter U, Mannion A (2010) A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J 19:297–306PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Mannion A, Junge A, Elfering A, Dvorak J, Porchet F, Grob D (2009) Great expectations: really the novel predictor of outcome after spinal surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1590–1599CrossRef Mannion A, Junge A, Elfering A, Dvorak J, Porchet F, Grob D (2009) Great expectations: really the novel predictor of outcome after spinal surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1590–1599CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Ahn H, Bhandari M, Schemitsch E (2009) An evidence-based approach to the adoption of new technology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 3):95–98PubMedCrossRef Ahn H, Bhandari M, Schemitsch E (2009) An evidence-based approach to the adoption of new technology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 3):95–98PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Anderson P, Sasso R, Rouleau J, Carlson C, Goffin J (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:303S–309SPubMedCrossRef Anderson P, Sasso R, Rouleau J, Carlson C, Goffin J (2004) The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 4:303S–309SPubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Deyo R (1988) Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 69:1044–1053PubMed Deyo R (1988) Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 69:1044–1053PubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Bowling A (2005) Just one question: if one question works, why ask several? J Epidemiol Community Health 59:342–345PubMedCrossRef Bowling A (2005) Just one question: if one question works, why ask several? J Epidemiol Community Health 59:342–345PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Deyo R, Battie M, Beurskens A, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2003–2013CrossRef Deyo R, Battie M, Beurskens A, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:2003–2013CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Mannion A, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer N, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026PubMedCrossRef Mannion A, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer N, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferrer M, Pellisé F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J, Deyo R (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1372–1379 discussion 1380CrossRef Ferrer M, Pellisé F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J, Deyo R (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1372–1379 discussion 1380CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Barz T, Theis J, Chavanne A, Grob D, Aebi M, Roeder C (2008) The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J 17:1201–1209PubMedCrossRef Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Barz T, Theis J, Chavanne A, Grob D, Aebi M, Roeder C (2008) The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J 17:1201–1209PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat White P, Lewith G, Prescott P (2004) The core outcomes for neck pain: validation of a new outcome measure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1923–1930CrossRef White P, Lewith G, Prescott P (2004) The core outcomes for neck pain: validation of a new outcome measure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:1923–1930CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38:27–36PubMedCrossRef Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38:27–36PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Moulin P, Röder C, Group SR (2009) SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 18:851–861PubMedCrossRef Schluessmann E, Diel P, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Moulin P, Röder C, Group SR (2009) SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J 18:851–861PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Deyo R, Centor R (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906PubMedCrossRef Deyo R, Centor R (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Beaton DE, Schemitsch E (2003) Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 90–105. Beaton DE, Schemitsch E (2003) Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 90–105.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Mannion A, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):374–379PubMedCrossRef Mannion A, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 3):374–379PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Brooks R (2003) The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective evidence from EuroQol BIOMED research programme. Kluwer, Dordrecht Brooks R (2003) The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective evidence from EuroQol BIOMED research programme. Kluwer, Dordrecht
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Prieto L, Sacristán JA (2004) What is the value of social values? The uselessness of assessing health-related quality of life through preference measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 4:10PubMedCrossRef Prieto L, Sacristán JA (2004) What is the value of social values? The uselessness of assessing health-related quality of life through preference measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 4:10PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat AAOS/NASS/SRS/CSRS/ORA/ASIA/COSS outcomes data collection questionnaires (1998) Cervical spine—baseline questionnaire, March 1998, Version 2.0 AAOS/NASS/SRS/CSRS/ORA/ASIA/COSS outcomes data collection questionnaires (1998) Cervical spine—baseline questionnaire, March 1998, Version 2.0
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Stoll T, Huber E, Bachmann S, Baumeler H, Mariacher S, Rutz M, Schneider W, Spring H, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G, Steiner W (2004) Validity and sensitivity to change of the NASS questionnaire for patients with cervical spine disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2851–2855CrossRef Stoll T, Huber E, Bachmann S, Baumeler H, Mariacher S, Rutz M, Schneider W, Spring H, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G, Steiner W (2004) Validity and sensitivity to change of the NASS questionnaire for patients with cervical spine disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:2851–2855CrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Sangha O, Wildner M, Peters A (2000) Evaluation of the North American Spine Society Instrument for assessment of health status in patients with chronic backache. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 138:447–451PubMedCrossRef Sangha O, Wildner M, Peters A (2000) Evaluation of the North American Spine Society Instrument for assessment of health status in patients with chronic backache. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 138:447–451PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Daltroy L, Cats-Baril W, Katz J, Fossel A, Liang M (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:741–749CrossRef Daltroy L, Cats-Baril W, Katz J, Fossel A, Liang M (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:741–749CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Andresen EM (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81:S15–S20PubMedCrossRef Andresen EM (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81:S15–S20PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307PubMedCrossRef McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, Bouter L, de Vet H (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42PubMedCrossRef Terwee C, Bot S, de Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, Bouter L, de Vet H (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG (2001) A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54:1204–1217PubMedCrossRef Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG (2001) A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54:1204–1217PubMedCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Beurskens A, de Vet H, Köke A (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76PubMedCrossRef Beurskens A, de Vet H, Köke A (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:S178–S189PubMedCrossRef Kazis L, Anderson J, Meenan R (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27:S178–S189PubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Zweig M, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577PubMed Zweig M, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577PubMed
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Hyland M (2003) A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:24PubMedCrossRef Hyland M (2003) A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:24PubMedCrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR (1998) Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2:i–iv, 1–74 Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR (1998) Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2:i–iv, 1–74
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Bolognese J, Schnitzer T, Ehrich E (2003) Response relationship of VAS and Likert scales in osteoarthritis efficacy measurement. Osteoarthr Cartil 11:499–507PubMedCrossRef Bolognese J, Schnitzer T, Ehrich E (2003) Response relationship of VAS and Likert scales in osteoarthritis efficacy measurement. Osteoarthr Cartil 11:499–507PubMedCrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ (2008) Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 11:275–284PubMedCrossRef Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ (2008) Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health 11:275–284PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ (2008) Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. Qual Life Res 17:463–473PubMedCrossRef Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ (2008) Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. Qual Life Res 17:463–473PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S (2007) Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care 45:259–263PubMedCrossRef Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S (2007) Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med Care 45:259–263PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Deyo R, Diehr P, Patrick D (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142S–158SPubMedCrossRef Deyo R, Diehr P, Patrick D (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12:142S–158SPubMedCrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN (2003) Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:607–615 Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN (2003) Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:607–615
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Fritzell P, Berg S, Borgström F, Tullberg T, Tropp H (2010) Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J Fritzell P, Berg S, Borgström F, Tullberg T, Tropp H (2010) Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Hyland M (1992) Selection of items and avoidance of bias in quality of life scales. Pharmacoeconomics 1:182–190PubMedCrossRef Hyland M (1992) Selection of items and avoidance of bias in quality of life scales. Pharmacoeconomics 1:182–190PubMedCrossRef
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118:622–629PubMed Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118:622–629PubMed
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Ergo A, Szava-Kovats G (1998) Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 13:421–433PubMedCrossRef Johnson JA, Coons SJ, Ergo A, Szava-Kovats G (1998) Valuation of EuroQOL (EQ-5D) health states in an adult US sample. Pharmacoeconomics 13:421–433PubMedCrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Bharmal M, Thomas J (2006) Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health 9:262–271PubMedCrossRef Bharmal M, Thomas J (2006) Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value Health 9:262–271PubMedCrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, Vilagut G, Brugulat P, Herdman M, Mompart A, Medina A, Pardo Y, Alonso J, Brazier J, Ferrer M (2010) Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res 19:853–864PubMedCrossRef Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, Vilagut G, Brugulat P, Herdman M, Mompart A, Medina A, Pardo Y, Alonso J, Brazier J, Ferrer M (2010) Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res 19:853–864PubMedCrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Petrou S, Hockley C (2005) An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 14:1169–1189PubMedCrossRef Petrou S, Hockley C (2005) An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 14:1169–1189PubMedCrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Tidermark J, Bergström G (2007) Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res 16:321–330PubMedCrossRef Tidermark J, Bergström G (2007) Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res 16:321–330PubMedCrossRef
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Bombardier C, Hayden J, Beaton DE (2001) Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures. J Rheumatol 28:431–438PubMed Bombardier C, Hayden J, Beaton DE (2001) Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures. J Rheumatol 28:431–438PubMed
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Siepe CJ, Mayer HM (2009) Is the final outcome predictable following total lumbar disc replacement? Proceedings of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, Miami, Florida, USA, 4–8 May 2009 Siepe CJ, Mayer HM (2009) Is the final outcome predictable following total lumbar disc replacement? Proceedings of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, Miami, Florida, USA, 4–8 May 2009
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Campbell H, Rivero-Arias O, Johnston K, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Trial UMSS (2006) Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: an assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:815–822CrossRef Campbell H, Rivero-Arias O, Johnston K, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, Trial UMSS (2006) Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: an assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:815–822CrossRef
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 78:1186–1196PubMed Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 78:1186–1196PubMed
60.
Zurück zum Zitat MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K (1986) Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. J Chronic Dis 39:429–438PubMedCrossRef MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K (1986) Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. J Chronic Dis 39:429–438PubMedCrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Gill C, Finch E (1994) Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther 74:528–533PubMed Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Gill C, Finch E (1994) Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther 74:528–533PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck
verfasst von
C. D. Fankhauser
U. Mutter
E. Aghayev
A. F. Mannion
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2012
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
European Spine Journal / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1921-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

European Spine Journal 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.