Development of the AOSpine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine PROST): a universal disease-specific outcome instrument for individuals with traumatic spinal column injury

Translation and validation of the Chinese self-report version of Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM-SR): Rasch psychometric analysis and online application

Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM) was an important functional outcome measure specifically designed for spinal cord injury (SCI) patients, with the self-reported version of SCIM (SCIM-SR) published in 2013. This study aims to translate the SCIM-SR into Chinese, and to investigate the validity of Chinese SCIM-SR among SCI patients. This Chinese version of SCIM-SR was translated into Chinese in a standardized approach, and then filled out by a sample of patients with SCI (n = 205) within 3 days after admission. Validity of Chinese SCIM-SR was then analyzed using Rasch analysis and principal component analysis. The subscale Selfcare and subscale Mobility showed good fit to the Rasch model, with no significance found in Chi-square test results for item-trait interaction, using Bonferroni adjustment for the significant level (χ2 =18.125, P = 0.111; χ2 =33.629, P = 0.006). Mean fit residual for items and persons of each subscale were within ± 2.5. The model fit of the subscale of Respiration and Sphincter Management was not satisfactory even after deleting one item and merging two items with local dependence. However, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test was > 0.50 in total score and all the subscales of Chinese SCIM-SR, and P < 0.05 in the Bartlett's test. There was no differential item functioning for gender, time post injury, age, and etiology in any of the three subscales. An online version of Chinese SCIM-SR was also developed. It is concluded that the SCIM-SR in Chinese is valid for application in individuals with SCI. SCIM-SR is considered as an important tool for self-reporting functional status from SCI individuals' perspective.

How reliable is the distinction between thoracolumbar AO type A3 and A4 fractures? A systematic literature review

PURPOSE

The AOSpine classification divides thoracolumbar burst fractures into A3 and A4 fractures; nevertheless, past research has found inconsistent interobserver reliability in detecting those two fracture patterns. This systematic analysis aims to synthesize data on the reliability of discriminating between A3 and A4 fractures.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science for studies reporting the inter- and intra-observer reliability of detecting thoracolumbar AO A3 and A4 fractures using computed tomography (CT). The search spanned 2013 to 2023 and included both primarily reliability and observational comparative studies. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and used the modified COSMIN checklist to assess the studies' quality. Kappa coefficient (k) values were categorized according to Landis and Koch, from slight to excellent.

RESULTS

Of the 396 identified studies, nine met the eligibility criteria; all were primarily reliability studies except one observational study. Interobserver k values for A3/A4 fractures varied widely among studies (0.19-86). The interobserver reliability was poor in two studies, fair in one study, moderate in four studies, and excellent in two studies. Only two studies reported intra-observer reliability, showing fair and excellent agreement. The included studies revealed significant heterogeneity in study design, sample size, and interpretation methods.

CONCLUSION

Considerable variability exists in interobserver reliability for distinguishing A3 and A4 fractures from slight to excellent agreement. This variability might be attributed to methodological heterogeneity among studies, limitations of reliability analysis, or diagnostic pitfalls in differentiating between A3 and A4. Most observational studies comparing the outcome of A3 and A4 fractures do not report interobserver agreement, and this should be considered when interpreting their results.

Reliability and Validity of the German Version of the AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma Questionnaire

STUDY DESIGN

A single-center validation study.

OBJECTIVE

To translate and cross-culturally adapt the AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into German, and to test its psychometric properties among German-speaking Swiss spine trauma patients.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from a level-1 Swiss trauma center. Next to the AO Spine PROST, the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire was used for concurrent validity. Questionnaires were filled out at two-time points for test-retest reliability. Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For content validity, floor, and ceiling effects, as well as any irrelevant and missing questions were analyzed. Construct validity of the AO Spine PROST questionnaire to the EQ-5D-3L was tested using Spearman correlation tests.

RESULTS

The AOSpine PROST was translated and adapted into German using established guidelines. We included 179 patients. The floor effect for all items was well within the optimal range (below 15%), while the ceiling effect of seven items was within the optimal range. None of the items displayed a problematic floor or ceiling effect. The overall test-retest reliability of the total PROST score was excellent, with an ICC of .83 (95% CI .69-.91). The Spearman correlation coefficient between the total PROST summary score and EQ-5D-3 L was ρ = .63.

CONCLUSIONS

The German version of the AO Spine PROST questionnaire demonstrated very good validity and reliability results.

Validation of the AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting

PURPOSE

To evaluate feasibility, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and prospective validity of AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting.

METHODS

Patients were included from four trauma centers. Two surgeons with substantial amount of experience in spine trauma care were included from each center. Two separate questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6-months and 1-year: one to surgeons (mainly CROST) and another to patients (AO Spine PROST-Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and feasibility, Cronbach's α for internal consistency. Inter-rater reliability through exact agreement, Kappa statistics and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Prospective analysis, and relationships between CROST and PROST were explored through descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations.

RESULTS

In total, 92 patients were included. CROST showed excellent feasibility results. Internal consistency (α = 0.58-0.70) and reliability (ICC = 0.52 and 0.55) were moderate. Mean total scores between surgeons only differed 0.2-0.9 with exact agreement 48.9-57.6%. Exact agreement per CROST item showed good results (73.9-98.9%). Kappa statistics revealed moderate agreement for most CROST items. In the prospective analysis a trend was only seen when no concerns at all were expressed by the surgeon (CROST = 0), and moderate to strong positive Spearman correlations were found between CROST at baseline and the scores at follow-up (rs = 0.41-0.64). Comparing the CROST with PROST showed no specific association, nor any Spearman correlations (rs = -0.33-0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

The AO Spine CROST showed moderate validity in a true clinical setting including patients from the daily clinical practice.

Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: A systematic review

Introduction

The treatment of traumatic thoracic and lumbar spine fractures remains controversial. To date no consensus exists on the correct choice of surgical approach and technique.

Research question

to provide a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the available different surgical methods and their quantified outcomes.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were searched between 2001 and 2020 using the term 'spinal fractures'. Inclusion criteria were: adults, ≥10 cases, ≥12 months follow-up, thoracic or lumbar fractures, and surgery <3 weeks of trauma. Studies were categorized per surgical technique: Posterior open (PO), posterior percutaneous (PP), stand-alone vertebral body augmentation (SA), anterior scopic (AS), anterior open (AO), posterior percutaneous and anterior open (PPAO), posterior percutaneous and anterior scopic (PPAS), posterior open and anterior open (POAO) and posterior open and anterior scopic (POAS). The PO group was used as a reference group.

Results

After duplicate removal 6042 articles were identified. A total of 102 articles were Included, in which 137 separate surgical technique cohorts were described: PO (n = 75), PP, (n = 39), SA (n = 12), AO (n = 5), PPAO (n = 1), PPAS (n = 1), POAO (n = 2) and POAS (n = 2).

Discussion and conclusion

For type A3/A4 burst fractures, without severe neurological deficit, posterior percutaneous (PP) technique seems the safest and most feasible option in the past two decades. If needed, PP can be combined with anterior augmentation to prevent secondary kyphosis. Furthermore, posterior open (PO) technique is feasible in almost all types of fractures. Also, this technique can provide for an additional posterior decompression or fusion. Overall, no neurologic deterioration was reported following surgical intervention.

Health professionals' perspective on the applicability of AO Spine PROST (patient reported outcome Spine trauma) in people with a motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury

PURPOSE

The AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) was developed for people with spine trauma and minor or no neurological impairment. The purpose is to investigate health professionals' perspective on the applicability of the AO Spine PROST for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), using a discussion meeting and international survey study.

METHODS

A discussion meeting with SCI rehabilitation physicians in the Netherlands was performed, followed by a worldwide online survey among the AO Spine International community, involved in the care of people with SCI. Participants rated the comprehensibility, relevance, acceptability, feasibility and completeness of the AO Spine PROST on a 1-5 point scale (5 most positive). Comments could be provided per question.

RESULTS

The discussion meeting was attended by 13 SCI rehabilitation physicians. The survey was completed by 196 participants. Comprehensibility (mean ± SD: 4.1 ± 0.8), acceptability (4.0 ± 0.8), relevance (3.9 ± 0.8), completeness (3.9 ± 0.8), and feasibility (4.1 ± 0.7) of the AO Spine PROST were rated positively for use in people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Only a few participants questioned the relevance of items on the lower extremities (e.g., walking) or missed items on pulmonary functioning and complications. Some recommendations were made for improvement in instructions, terminology and examples of the tool.

CONCLUSION

Health professionals found the AO Spine PROST generally applicable for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. This study provides further evidence for the use of the AO Spine PROST in spine trauma care, rehabilitation and research, as well as suggestions for its further development.

Long-Term Reliability and Validity of the AO Spine PROST (Patient-Reported Outcome Spine Trauma)

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional validation study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to validate the AO Spine Patient-Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (PROST) at a minimum of 12 months posttrauma and to evaluate patient characteristics, types of spine fractures, and treatment strategies as determinants of AO Spine PROST scores.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The reliability and validity of the AO Spine PROST as a measure of health-related quality of life for more than 12 months after onset of spine trauma is unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with a traumatic spine injury were recruited from a level-1 trauma center. They were asked to complete the AO Spine PROST, EuroQoL 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L), and either Oswestry disability index (ODI) or neck disability index (NDI) for concurrent validity. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating the Cronbach α and item-total correlation coefficients. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Spearman correlation tests were performed for the AO Spine PROST in correlation with the EQ-5D-5L, and either ODI or NDI. Determinants for AO Spine PROST score were analyzed using multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 175 patients participated in the cross-sectional arm and 49 in the test-retest arm of the study. Median duration of follow-up was 94.5 months. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (α=0.98, item-total correlation coefficient: 0.73-0.91) as well as test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.81). Satisfactory correlations were seen for the EQ-5D-5L (0.76; P <0.001), ODI (0.69; P <0.001), and NDI (0.68; P <0.001) with the AO Spine PROST. Multivariate linear regression models showed that having ≥1 comorbidities, duration of return to work within the range of 7 to 43 months and no return to work were significant independent determinants for a worse AO Spine PROST score.

CONCLUSIONS

Very good long-term reliability and validity results were found for the AO Spine PROST.

Applicability of the AO Spine Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (PROST) in people with motor-complete spinal cord injury: a cognitive interview study

STUDY DESIGN

This is a cognitive interview study.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the applicability of the Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AO Spine PROST) in people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).

SETTING

Two rehabilitation centers in The Netherlands.

METHOD

Semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with 29 adults with a motor-complete SCI (AISA Impairment Scale A or B). Participants were asked to complete the AO Spine PROST and four additional evaluation questions rated on a 1-5-point Likert scale (5 most positive), while verbalizing their thoughts about their answers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Codes were identified and linked to a coding scheme. Qualitative data were used to interpret the quantitative results.

RESULTS

Almost three-quarters of the participants (71.4%) had a traumatic SCI. Positive ratings of the measure were obtained regards comprehensibility (mean 4.0), non-offensiveness (4.6), relevance (4.2), and completeness (3.6). A question about the emotional impact of SCI was indicated to be missing. How using an assistive device should weigh in the score was a recurring topic. The use of multiple examples per item raised uncertainty, mostly solved by averaging their score. Some individuals indicated that the possibility to express even better function compared to before the onset of injury would be valuable.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the AO Spine PROST appears applicable in adults with a motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Recommendations are made for improvement in instructions, terminology, and examples used in the tool. This study contributes to the further development of the AO Spine PROST in spine trauma care and research.

Translating Data Analytics Into Improved Spine Surgery Outcomes: A Roadmap for Biomedical Informatics Research in 2021

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

OBJECTIVES

There is growing interest in the use of biomedical informatics and data analytics tools in spine surgery. Yet despite the rapid growth in research on these topics, few analytic tools have been implemented in routine spine practice. The purpose of this review is to provide a health information technology (HIT) roadmap to help translate data assets and analytics tools into measurable advances in spine surgical care.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of PubMed and Google Scholar to identify publications discussing data assets, analytical approaches, and implementation strategies relevant to spine surgery practice.

RESULTS

A variety of data assets are available for spine research, ranging from commonly used datasets, such as administrative billing data, to emerging resources, such as mobile health and biobanks. Both regression and machine learning techniques are valuable for analyzing these assets, and researchers should recognize the particular strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Few studies have focused on the implementation of HIT, and a variety of methods exist to help translate analytic tools into clinically useful interventions. Finally, a number of HIT-related challenges must be recognized and addressed, including stakeholder acceptance, regulatory oversight, and ethical considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomedical informatics has the potential to support the development of new HIT that can improve spine surgery quality and outcomes. By understanding the development life-cycle that includes identifying an appropriate data asset, selecting an analytic approach, and leveraging an effective implementation strategy, spine researchers can translate this potential into measurable advances in patient care.

Reliability and Validity of the English Version of the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma)

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter validation study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to translate and adapt the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) into English, and test its psychometric properties among North-American spine trauma patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In the absence of an outcome instrument specifically designed and validated for traumatic spinal column injury patients, it is difficult to measure the effect size of various treatment options. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma initiated a project and developed the AOSpine PROST consisting of 19 items.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from two level-1 North-American trauma centers. For concurrent validity, next to AOSpine PROST also 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) was filled out by patients. Patient characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Floor and ceiling effects as well as the number of inapplicable and missing questions were analyzed for content validity. Cronbach α and item-total correlation coefficients (ITCCs) were calculated for internal consistency. Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation to SF-36. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST.

RESULTS

The AOSpine PROST was translated adapted into English using established guidelines. Of 196 enrolled patients, 162 (82.7%) met the inclusion criteria and provided sufficient data. Content validity showed good results, and no floor and ceiling effects were seen. The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach α = 0.97; ITCC 0.50-0.90) as well as test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97). Spearman correlations were good (0.29-0.85). The strongest correlations of AOSpine PROST with SF-36 were seen with the physical components (0.69-0.82; P < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigen values >1), explaining 75.7% of variance.

CONCLUSION

The English version of AOSpine PROST showed very good validity and reliability. It is considered as a valuable tool, and has the potential to contribute to the reduction of ongoing controversies in spine trauma care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma)

PURPOSE

To validate the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).

METHODS

Patients were recruited from two level-1 trauma centers from the Netherlands. Next to the AOSpine PROST, patients also filled out SF-36 for concurrent validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the characteristics. Content validity was assessed by evaluating the number of inapplicable or missing questions. Also floor and ceiling effects were analyzed. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach's α and item-total correlation coefficients (itcc). Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation with SF-36. Test-retest reliability was analyzed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by calculating effect sizes (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST.

RESULTS

Out of 179 enrolled patients, 163 (91.1%) were included. Good results were obtained for content validity. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.96, itcc 0.50-0.86), with also good Spearman correlations (0.25-0.79). Compared to SF-36, the strongest correlation was seen for physical functioning (0.79; p < .001). Also test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92). Concerning responsiveness analysis, very good results were seen with ES = 1.81 and SRM = 2.03 (p < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigenvalues > 1), explaining 65.4% of variance.

CONCLUSIONS

Very satisfactory results were obtained for reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST. Treating surgeons are encouraged to use this novel and validated tool in clinical setting and research to contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care.

Development and reliability of the AOSpine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma): a tool to evaluate and predict outcomes from clinician's perspective

PURPOSE

To report on the development of AOSpine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) and results of an initial reliability study.

METHODS

The AOSpine CROST was developed using an iterative approach of multiple cycles of development, review, and revision including an expert clinician panel. Subsequently, a reliability study was performed among an expert panel who were provided with 20 spine trauma cases, administered twice with 4-week interval. The results of the developmental process were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the reliability per parameter using Kappa statistics, inter-rater rater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and internal consistency using Cronbach's α.

RESULTS

The AOSpine CROST was developed and consisted of 10 parameters, 2 of which are only applicable for surgically treated patents ('Wound healing' and 'Implants'). A dichotomous scoring system ('yes' or 'no' response) was incorporated to express expected problems for the short term and long term. In the reliability study, 16 (84.2%) participated in the first round and 14 (73.7%) in the second. Intra-rater reliability was fair to good for both time points (κ = 0.40-0.80 and κ = 0.31-0.67). Results of inter-rater reliability were lower (κ = 0.18-0.60 and κ = 0.16-0.46). Inter-rater agreement for total scores showed moderate results (ICC = 0.52-0.60), and the internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.76-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

The AOSpine CROST, an outcome tool for the surgeons, was developed using an iterative process. An initial reliability analysis showed fair to moderate results and acceptable internal consistency. Further clinical validation studies will be performed to further validate the tool.

Reliability and Validity of the Adapted Dutch Version of the Early-Onset Scoliosis-24-Item Questionnaire (EOSQ-24)

STUDY DESIGN

Translation and validation of the Early Onset Scoliosis-24 Questionnaire (EOSQ-24).

OBJECTIVE

To cross-culturally adapt the English version of the EOSQ-24 to the Dutch language and to assess the questionnaire's reliability and validity.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Early-onset scoliosis (EOS) has a profound impact on health-related quality of life. The EOSQ-24 is health-related quality of life questionnaire filled in by parents of children with EOS. The EOSQ-24 was already translated into multiple languages and its application was confirmed in clinical studies. However, the EOSQ-24 is not yet translated and validated for the Dutch population.

METHODS

The adaption of the EOSQ-24 for the Dutch population was done in three steps: 1) translation to the Dutch language, 2) cross-cultural adaptation, and 3) cross-cultural validation. To ensure that the Adapted Dutch EOSQ-24 is applicable for clinical use, the measurement properties were tested in four steps: 1) floor and ceiling effects, 2) validation, 3) reliability, and 4) discriminative ability. One hundred three parents completed the Adapted Dutch EOSQ-24, the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ-28 PF), and the Scoliosis Research Society Questionnaire (SRS-22r). A second EOSQ-24 was completed for test-retest reproducibility.

RESULTS

The EOSQ-24 was successfully translated, adapted, and validated for the Dutch language. Almost all response items showed a normal distribution. The EOSQ-24 showed excellent reliability (Cronbach α of 0.950). The EOSQ-24 was successfully validated against the CHQ-28-PF and the SRS-22r. Test-retest was excellent (ICC ≥ 0.8). Finally, The EOSQ-24 was found capable to discriminate patients with different curve severities (P = 0.003), diagnosis (P = 0.006), and ambulatory status (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The current Dutch EOSQ-24 proved to be a valid and reliable quality of life assessment tool for patients with EOS. Currently, long follow-up studies using the EOSQ-24, including the Dutch EOSQ-24, are lacking and are needed to fully validate the EOSQ-24 for use in a clinical setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

The Need of Validated Disease-Specific Outcome Instruments for Spine Trauma

This article focuses on patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in spine trauma care. The measurement of the quality of care and functional and health-related quality of life outcomes of spine trauma patients has become increasingly important. However, no outcome instrument is specifically designed, validated, or universally adapted for this specific patient population. Issues specific to spinal trauma patients may not be adequately addressed by the instruments that are currently used in the literature and the daily clinical practice. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma initiated a project to develop and validate such instruments for spine trauma patients. To reflect the different perspectives of patients and the treating surgeons, 2 separate tools are being developed: the Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine PROST) and Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine CROST). These tools hold promise, as useful instruments to measure the outcomes of spine trauma patients with and without neurological deficit, making it more feasible for clinical use as well. Treating surgeons around the world are encouraged to use the AOSpine PROST and AOSpine CROST in daily clinical practice and for research purposes to create and contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care. Using the same outcome measures that are specifically developed and validated for traumatic spine injuries will allow us to compare the outcomes of various treatments in a valid and reproducible fashion. This contributes to a reduction of the ongoing controversies and providing the best treatments for our patients.