首页> 外文期刊>Acta Neurochirurgica >Usefulness of minimum clinically important difference for assessing patients with subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease: Statistical versus substantial clinical benefit
【24h】

Usefulness of minimum clinically important difference for assessing patients with subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease: Statistical versus substantial clinical benefit

机译:临床上最小的重要差异对评估亚轴变性颈椎病患者的实用性:统计学与实质性临床获益

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background The measurement of the therapeutic outcome of cervical spine surgeries commonly relies on four main patient reported outcomes (PROs): Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, and Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical (PCS) and Mental (MCS) Component Summary. However, the clinical impact of such scores and how they could effectively measure therapeutic efficacy remains unclear. In this context, the concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is developing into the standard by which to evaluate treatments, patient satisfaction and costeffectiveness. Methods Eighty-eight consecutive patients undergoing surgery for subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease were selected from a prospective blinded database. PROs (NDI, PCS, MCS and VAS) were collected preoperatively, and together with blinded Surgeon Ratings (SR) at 3 months and 6 months post-surgery. Four anchor-based approaches were used to calculate different MCIDs. Three anchors (VAS, HTI (Health Transition Item of the SF-36) and SR) were used to evaluate surgery outcome. The best clinically and statistically relevant MCID was chosen. Results On average, all patients presented with a statistically significant improvement (p <0.001) postoperatively for NDI (27.42 to 19.42), PCS (33.02 to 42.03), MCS (44 to 50.74) and VAS (2.85 to 1.93). The four MCID anchor-based approaches yielded a range of values for each PRO: 2.23-16.59 for PCS, 0.11-16.27 for MCS and 2.72-12.08 for NDI. When compared to the VAS and HTI anchors, the area under the ROC curve was greater for SR. This finding suggests that SR may be a more reliable anchor for MCID calculation. Conclusion The MDC (minimum detectable change) approach together with the SR anchor appears to be the most appropriateMCIDmethod. It offers the greatest area under the ROC curve (threshold above the 95 % CI), and the choice of the anchor did not significantly affect this result.MCID values for this dataset were 5.6 for PCS, 5.12 for MCS and 2.41 for NDI.
机译:背景颈椎手术治疗结局的测量通常取决于四个主要的患者报告结局(PRO):颈部残疾指数(NDI),疼痛的视觉模拟量表(VAS)和短版36(SF-36)物理(PCS)和心理(MCS)组件摘要。但是,此类评分的临床影响以及如何有效评估疗效尚不清楚。在这种情况下,最小临床重要差异(MCID)的概念正在发展成为评估治疗,患者满意度和成本效益的标准。方法从前瞻性盲数据库中选择连续的88例接受亚轴变性颈椎病手术的患者。术前收集PROs(NDI,PCS,MCS和VAS),并在术后3个月和6个月时与盲目外科医生评分(SR)一起收集。四种基于锚的方法用于计算不同的MCID。使用三个锚点(VAS,HTI(SF-36的健康过渡项目)和SR)评估手术效果。选择最佳的临床和统计学相关MCID。结果平均而言,所有患者术后NDI(27.42至19.42),PCS(33.02至42.03),MCS(44至50.74)和VAS(2.85至1.93)均有统计学显着改善(p <0.001)。四种基于MCID锚的方法为每个PRO产生了一系列值:PCS为2.23-16.59,MCS为0.11-16.27,NDI为2.72-12.08。与VAS和HTI锚相比,SR的ROC曲线下的面积更大。这一发现表明,SR可能是MCID计算的更可靠的锚。结论MDC(最小可检测变化)方法与SR锚点似乎是最合适的MCID方法。它提供了ROC曲线下的最大区域(阈值高于95%CI),并且锚点的选择并没有显着影响此结果。此数据集的MCID值对于PCS而言为5.6,对于MCS为5.12,对于NDI为2.41。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号