Citation

CumhurOner F, Jacobs WC, Lehr AM, Sadiqi S, Post MW, Aarabi B, Chapman JR, Dvorak MF, Fehlings MG, Kandziora F, Rajasekaran S, Vaccaro AR. Spine 2015; 41(4): 358-367.

Affiliation

*Department of Orthopaedics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands †Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands ‡Rehabilitation Center 'De Hoogstraat', Utrecht, The Netherlands §Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Center for Rehabilitation, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands ¶Department of Neurosurgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, USA ||Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, USA **Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ††Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ‡‡Center for Spinal Surgery, BGU-Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany §§Department of Orthopaedic and Spine Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, India ¶¶Department of Orthopaedics, Thomas Jefferson University and Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins)

DOI

10.1097/BRS.0000000000001207

PMID

26555824

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review OBJECTIVE.: 1) To identify patient reported and clinician based outcome measures most frequently used to evaluate the function and health of spine trauma patients, 2) to identify and quantify the concepts of these measures using the ICF as reference, and 3) to describe their clinimetric properties. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a real need for a disease specific outcome instrument to measure the effect size of various treatment options in a variety of traumatic spinal column injuries.

METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in several databases. From the included studies, outcome measures were extracted. The items and underlying concepts of the identified outcome measures were specified and linked to the ICF categories.Finally, as far as available in literature, the clinimetric properties of the obtained measures were analyzed.

RESULTS: Out of 5117 screened references, 245 were included, and 17 different frequently used outcome measures were identified.Meaningful concepts of the items and response options of the retrieved outcome measures were linked to a total of 105 different ICF categories, aggregated to 57 first- or second-level categories. The categories were linked to the components activities and participation (n = 31), body functions (n = 17), environmental factors (n = 8), and body structures (n = 1).Overall, there is only limited evidence on the measurement properties, except for some disease specific questionnaires, such as ODI, RMDQ, NDI, and CSOQ.

CONCLUSIONS: The current systematic literature review revealed great diversity in the use and content of outcome measures to evaluate the functioning and health of spine trauma patients, with 17 different outcome measures linked to 57 unique ICF categories.This study creates an evidence base for a consensus meeting during which a core set of ICF categories for outcome measurement in spine trauma will be decided. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Language: en