Tracking patient-reported outcomes in spinal disorders

Nikhil R. Nayak, John Mitchell Coats, Kalil G. Abdullah, Sherman C. Stein, Neil R. Malhotra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) quantify health status from the patient's point of view. While the number of published outcomes studies grows each year, so too has the number of instruments being reported, leading to confusion on which instruments are appropriate to use for various spinal conditions. Methods: A broad search was conducted to identify commonly used PROMs in patients undergoing spinal surgery. We searched PubMed for combinations of terms related to anatomic location and a measure of patient-reported outcome in the title or text. We supplemented the search using the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by manually searching the bibliographies of selected articles. Results: Major categories of PROMs in spine surgery include health-related quality-of-life, pain, and disease-specific disability, for which several different instrument options were identified and detailed. The minimal clinically important difference varies between instruments and differentiates statistical significance from clinical significance. In addition, the accurate estimation of costs has become a challenging but intrinsically linked variable to outcomes as increased attention is paid to the relative value of surgical interventions. Conclusion: While a number of PROMs are available for tracking outcomes in spine surgery, only a handful appear to be widely used. At least one instrument from each category should be measured pre- and post-operatively to quantify treatment effect. In addition, while the primary goal is to select the most appropriate instruments for the patient's condition, one should keep in mind sustainability of efforts with regard to patient and administrative burden.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S490-S499
JournalSurgical Neurology International
Volume6
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

PubMed
Spine
Confusion
Bibliography
Health Status
Quality of Life
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Costs and Cost Analysis
Pain
Therapeutics
Minimal Clinically Important Difference

Keywords

  • Comparative-effectiveness
  • cost-effectiveness
  • patient-reported outcomes
  • quality-of-life
  • spine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Tracking patient-reported outcomes in spinal disorders. / Nayak, Nikhil R.; Coats, John Mitchell; Abdullah, Kalil G.; Stein, Sherman C.; Malhotra, Neil R.

In: Surgical Neurology International, Vol. 6, 01.10.2015, p. S490-S499.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nayak, Nikhil R. ; Coats, John Mitchell ; Abdullah, Kalil G. ; Stein, Sherman C. ; Malhotra, Neil R. / Tracking patient-reported outcomes in spinal disorders. In: Surgical Neurology International. 2015 ; Vol. 6. pp. S490-S499.
@article{5e702773309d423cbcc0caabcb777a3e,
title = "Tracking patient-reported outcomes in spinal disorders",
abstract = "Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) quantify health status from the patient's point of view. While the number of published outcomes studies grows each year, so too has the number of instruments being reported, leading to confusion on which instruments are appropriate to use for various spinal conditions. Methods: A broad search was conducted to identify commonly used PROMs in patients undergoing spinal surgery. We searched PubMed for combinations of terms related to anatomic location and a measure of patient-reported outcome in the title or text. We supplemented the search using the {"}related articles{"} feature of PubMed and by manually searching the bibliographies of selected articles. Results: Major categories of PROMs in spine surgery include health-related quality-of-life, pain, and disease-specific disability, for which several different instrument options were identified and detailed. The minimal clinically important difference varies between instruments and differentiates statistical significance from clinical significance. In addition, the accurate estimation of costs has become a challenging but intrinsically linked variable to outcomes as increased attention is paid to the relative value of surgical interventions. Conclusion: While a number of PROMs are available for tracking outcomes in spine surgery, only a handful appear to be widely used. At least one instrument from each category should be measured pre- and post-operatively to quantify treatment effect. In addition, while the primary goal is to select the most appropriate instruments for the patient's condition, one should keep in mind sustainability of efforts with regard to patient and administrative burden.",
keywords = "Comparative-effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes, quality-of-life, spine",
author = "Nayak, {Nikhil R.} and Coats, {John Mitchell} and Abdullah, {Kalil G.} and Stein, {Sherman C.} and Malhotra, {Neil R.}",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4103/2152-7806.166892",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "S490--S499",
journal = "Surgical Neurology International",
issn = "2152-7806",
publisher = "Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tracking patient-reported outcomes in spinal disorders

AU - Nayak, Nikhil R.

AU - Coats, John Mitchell

AU - Abdullah, Kalil G.

AU - Stein, Sherman C.

AU - Malhotra, Neil R.

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) quantify health status from the patient's point of view. While the number of published outcomes studies grows each year, so too has the number of instruments being reported, leading to confusion on which instruments are appropriate to use for various spinal conditions. Methods: A broad search was conducted to identify commonly used PROMs in patients undergoing spinal surgery. We searched PubMed for combinations of terms related to anatomic location and a measure of patient-reported outcome in the title or text. We supplemented the search using the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by manually searching the bibliographies of selected articles. Results: Major categories of PROMs in spine surgery include health-related quality-of-life, pain, and disease-specific disability, for which several different instrument options were identified and detailed. The minimal clinically important difference varies between instruments and differentiates statistical significance from clinical significance. In addition, the accurate estimation of costs has become a challenging but intrinsically linked variable to outcomes as increased attention is paid to the relative value of surgical interventions. Conclusion: While a number of PROMs are available for tracking outcomes in spine surgery, only a handful appear to be widely used. At least one instrument from each category should be measured pre- and post-operatively to quantify treatment effect. In addition, while the primary goal is to select the most appropriate instruments for the patient's condition, one should keep in mind sustainability of efforts with regard to patient and administrative burden.

AB - Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) quantify health status from the patient's point of view. While the number of published outcomes studies grows each year, so too has the number of instruments being reported, leading to confusion on which instruments are appropriate to use for various spinal conditions. Methods: A broad search was conducted to identify commonly used PROMs in patients undergoing spinal surgery. We searched PubMed for combinations of terms related to anatomic location and a measure of patient-reported outcome in the title or text. We supplemented the search using the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by manually searching the bibliographies of selected articles. Results: Major categories of PROMs in spine surgery include health-related quality-of-life, pain, and disease-specific disability, for which several different instrument options were identified and detailed. The minimal clinically important difference varies between instruments and differentiates statistical significance from clinical significance. In addition, the accurate estimation of costs has become a challenging but intrinsically linked variable to outcomes as increased attention is paid to the relative value of surgical interventions. Conclusion: While a number of PROMs are available for tracking outcomes in spine surgery, only a handful appear to be widely used. At least one instrument from each category should be measured pre- and post-operatively to quantify treatment effect. In addition, while the primary goal is to select the most appropriate instruments for the patient's condition, one should keep in mind sustainability of efforts with regard to patient and administrative burden.

KW - Comparative-effectiveness

KW - cost-effectiveness

KW - patient-reported outcomes

KW - quality-of-life

KW - spine

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959260298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959260298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/2152-7806.166892

DO - 10.4103/2152-7806.166892

M3 - Article

C2 - 26605111

AN - SCOPUS:84959260298

VL - 6

SP - S490-S499

JO - Surgical Neurology International

JF - Surgical Neurology International

SN - 2152-7806

ER -