Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI-back) in patients with non-specific low back pain

Evaluation of "appropriate use criteria" for surgical decision-making in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. A controlled, multicentre, prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Selecting patients with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) for surgery is difficult. Appropriate use criteria (AUC) have been developed to clarify the indications for LDS surgery but have not been evaluated in controlled studies.

METHODS

This prospective, controlled, multicentre study involved 908 patients (561 surgical and 347 non-surgical controls; 69.5 ± 9.7y; 69% female), treated as per normal clinical practice. Their appropriateness for surgery was afterwards determined using the AUC. They completed the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) at baseline and 12 months' follow-up. Multiple regression adjusting for confounders evaluated the influence of appropriateness designation and treatment received on the 12-month COMI and achievement of MCIC (≥ 2.2-point-reduction).

RESULTS

As per convention, appropriate (A) and uncertain (U) groups were combined for comparison with the inappropriate (I) group. For the adjusted 12-month COMI, the benefit of surgery relative to non-surgical care was not significantly greater for the A/U than the I group (p = 0.189). There was, however, a greater treatment effect of surgery for those with higher baseline COMI (p = 0.035). The groups' adjusted probabilities of achieving MCIC were: 83% (A/U, receiving surgery), 71% (I, receiving surgery), 50% (A/U, receiving non-surgical care), and 32% (I, receiving non-surgical care).

CONCLUSIONS

A/U patients receiving surgery had the highest chances of achieving MCIC, but the AUC were not able to identify which patients had a greater treatment effect of surgery relative to non-surgical care. The identification of other characteristics that predict a greater treatment effect of surgery, in addition to baseline COMI, is required to improve decision-making.

Cross-cultural adaptation, validation and establishment of the minimal clinically important change score of the European Portuguese core outcome measures index in patients with lumbar degenerative spine disease

PURPOSE

The core outcome measures index (COMI) for the back is a questionnaire that evaluates five domains and has been translated into several languages and validated for different populations. We aimed to translate, cross-culturally adapt and validate it in European Portuguese for use in patients with degenerative lumbar disease. Additionally, we aimed to establish the minimal clinically important change score (MCIC).

METHODS

The translation and cultural adaptation were done according to published guidelines. Patients awaiting surgery at a neurosurgical center completed the COMI, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D questionnaires and a pain visual analog scale (VAS). To evaluate COMI's reproducibility, patients completed the questionnaire twice within two weeks, preoperatively, in addition to answering a transition question. The MCIC was determined by analysis of postoperative changes in total COMI score, using the anchor method, with a question ascertaining surgical outcome as perceived by the patient.

RESULTS

The first set of questionnaires was answered by 108 patients and the second, by 98 patients. COMI's construct validity was confirmed by demonstrating the hypothesized correlation between each domain's score (Spearman Rho > 0.4) and the corresponding questionnaire score (ODI, EQ-5D and VAS) and through adequate correlation (Spearman > 0.6) between COMI's total score and ODI and EQ-5D total scores. Intraclass correlation coefficients between each domain and COMI's total score were > 0.8. The MCIC was calculated as 2.1.

CONCLUSION

The cross-culturally adapted COMI questionnaire is a valid clinical assessment tool for European Portuguese-speaking patients with degenerative lumbar disease, with an MCIC of 2.1 points.

How well can the clinician appraise the patient's perception of the severity and impact of their back problem?

PURPOSE

A main concern of patients with back problems is pain and its impact on function and quality of life. These are subjective phenomena, and should be probed during the clinical consultation so that the physician can ascertain the extent of the problem. This study evaluated the agreement between clinicians' and patients' independent ratings of patient status on the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI).

METHODS

This was an analysis of the data from 5 spine specialists and 108 patients, in two centres. Prior to the consultation, the patient completed the COMI. After the consultation, the clinician (blind to the patient's version) also completed a COMI. Concordance was assessed by % agreement, Kappa values, Bland-Altman plots, Spearman rank, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and comparisons of mean values, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Agreement regarding the "main problem" (back pain, leg/buttock pain, sensory disturbances, other) was 83%, Kappa = 0.70 (95%CI 0.58-0.81). Moderate/strong correlations were found between the doctors' and patients' COMI-item ratings (0.48-0.74; p < 0.0001), although compared with the patients' ratings the doctors systematically underestimated absolute values for leg pain (p = 0.002) and dissatisfaction with symptom state (p = 0.002), and overestimated how much the patient's function was impaired (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

The doctors were able to ascertain the location of the main problem and the multidimensional outcome score with good accuracy, but some individual domains were systematically underestimated (pain, symptom-specific well-being) or overestimated (impairment of function). More detailed/direct questioning on these domains during the consultation might deliver a better appreciation of the impact of the back problem on the patient's daily life.

Minimal clinical datasets for spine-related musculoskeletal disorders in primary and outpatient care settings: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Effective measurement and monitoring of health status in patients with spine-related musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders are essential for providing appropriate care and improving outcomes. Minimal clinical datasets are standardized sets of key data elements and patient-centered outcomes that can be measured and recorded during routine clinical care. Our scoping review aimed to identify and map current evidence on minimal clinical datasets for measuring and monitoring health status in patients with spine-related MSK disorders in primary and outpatient healthcare settings.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We followed the JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology for scoping reviews. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Index to Chiropractic Literature, MANTIS, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and medRxiv preprint repository were searched from database inception to August 1, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and charted the evidence. Findings were synthesized and summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

After screening 5,583 citations and 301 full-text articles, 104 studies about 32 individual minimal clinical datasets were included. Most minimal clinical datasets were developed for patient populations with spine-involving inflammatory arthritis, nonspecific or degenerative spinal pain, and MSK disorders in general. The minimal clinical datasets varied substantially in terms of the author-reported time-to-complete (1-48 minutes) and the number of items (5-100 items). Fifty percent of the datasets involved healthcare professionals in their development process, and only 28% involved patients. Health domain items were most frequently linked to the components of activities and participation (43.9%) and body functions (28.6%), according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. There is no standardized definition of minimal clinical datasets to measure and monitor health status of patients with spine-related MSK disorders in routine clinical practice. Common core elements identified were practicality, feasibility in a busy routine practice, time efficiency, and the capability to be used across different healthcare settings.

CONCLUSION

Due to the absence of a standard definition for minimal clinical datasets for patients with spine-related MSK disorders, there is a lack of consistency in the selection of key data elements and patient-centered outcomes that should be included. More research on the implementation and feasibility of minimal clinical datasets in routine care settings is warranted and needed. It is essential to involve all relevant partners in the development process of minimal clinical datasets to ensure successful implementation and adoption in routine primary care.

Arabic-Translated Versions of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Utilized in Spine Research: A Review of Validated Studies

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized tools commonly applied in research and healthcare appraisal. Most were developed in English and the cross-cultural adaptation (CCA) and validation of their translated versions remain topics of contemporary research appeal. This review aimed to identify the Arabic-translated PROMs that were utilized in spine research and to assess the methodological qualities of their studies. The PubMed database was searched, and all relevant publications were identified. The CCA and measurement properties were assessed using the guidelines described by Oliveria and Terwee respectively. Thirty studies that validated the Arabic versions of 26 PROMs were found suitable. The tools that had the highest total citation numbers were Neck Disability Index, Ronald-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, Scoliosis Research Society-22, Back Beliefs Questionnaire, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, and McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form. The Arabic versions of Short Form-36 (SF-36), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) were not included due to lack of validation in spine research. All the articles were published from 2007 to 2023 (median 2019) and their journal's impact factor and citation numbers were relatively modest (mean 2 and 6.5 respectively). Most patients had low back pain (19 articles), were recruited from physiotherapy and rehabilitation departments (18 articles) and came from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (12 articles). The quality of the CCA of the Arabic versions was rated good in forward translation, synthesis, back translation, and expert committee review but less so in pretesting and submission. The measurement properties of the studies were considered good quality in internal consistency, reliability, structural validity and cross-cultural validity but less so in content validity, error measurement, responsiveness and floor/ceiling effect. In conclusion, with a few exceptions, most of the widely utilized PROMs in spine research have validated Arabic versions. The methodological quality of the studies was good apart from a few shortages that could be improved upon by further research. Work should be done to address the validation of Arabic versions of SF-36, VAS and EQ-5D in spine research. PROMs are valuable in systematizing subjective outcomes. Their usage in research and clinical settings in any validated language should be highly encouraged.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures in Arabic speaking countries: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly recognized as an indicator of healthcare quality and safety. Over the past decades, there has been a growing interest in using PROMs in Arabic-speaking populations. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the quality of their cross-cultural adaptation (CCA) and measurement properties.

OBJECTIVES

To identify PROMs that have been developed, validated or cross-culturally adapted to Arabic and evaluate methodological qualities of CCA and measurement properties.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IPA, and ISI Web of Science were searched using search terms 'PROMs', 'Arabic countries', 'CCA', and 'psychometric properties'. Measurement properties were evaluated using COSMIN quality criteria and CCA quality was assessed using the Oliveria rating method.

RESULTS

This review included 260 studies with 317 PROMs, focusing on psychometric testing (83.8%), CCA (75.8%), utilizing PROMs as outcome measures (13.4%), and developing PROMs (2.3%). Out of the 201 cross-culturally adapted PROMs, forward translation was the most frequently reported component of CCA (n = 178), followed by back translation (n = 174). Out of the 235 PROMs that reported measurement properties, internal consistency was the most frequently reported measurement property (n = 214), followed by reliability (n = 160) and hypotheses testing (n = 143). Other measurement properties were less reported, including responsiveness (n = 36), criterion validity (n = 22), measurement error (n = 12), and cross-cultural validity (n = 10). The strongest measurement property was hypotheses testing (n = 143), followed by reliability (n = 132).

CONCLUSION

There are several caveats regarding the quality of CCA and measurement properties of PROMs included in this review. Only 1 out of 317 Arabic PROMs met CCA and psychometric optimal quality criteria. Therefore, there is a need to improve the methodological quality of CCA and measurement properties of PROMs. This review provides valuable information for researchers and clinicians when choosing PROMs for practice and research. There were only 5 treatment-specific PROMs, indicating the necessity for more research focusing on development and CCA of such measures.

Does loss to follow-up lead to an overestimation of treatment success? Findings from a spine surgery registry of over 15,000 patients

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are integral to the assessment of treatment success, but loss to follow-up (attrition) may lead to bias in the results reported. We sought to evaluate the extent, nature and implications of attrition in a long-established, single-centre spine registry.

METHODS

The registry contained the data of 15,264 consecutive spine surgery patients. PROMs included the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) and a rating of the Global Treatment Outcome (GTO) and Satisfaction with Care. Baseline characteristics associated with returning a 12-month PROM (= "responder") were analysed (logistic regression). The 3-month outcomes of 12-month responders versus 12-month non-responders were compared (ANOVA and Chi-square).

RESULTS

In total, 14,758/15,264 (97%) patients (60 ± 17y; 46% men) had consented to the use of their registry data for research. Preoperative, 3-month post-operative and 12-month post-operative PROMs were returned by 91, 90 and 86%, respectively. Factors associated with being a 12-month responder included: greater age, born in the country of the study, no private/semi-private insurance, better baseline status (lower COMI score), fewer previous surgeries, less comorbidity and no perioperative medical complications. 12-month non-responders had shown significantly worse outcomes in their 3-month PROMs than had 12-month responders (respectively, 66% vs 80% good GTO ("treatment helped/helped a lot"); 77% vs 88% satisfied/very satisfied; and 49% vs 63% achieved MCIC on COMI).

CONCLUSION

Although attrition in this cohort was relatively low, 12-month non-responders displayed distinctive characteristics and their early outcomes were significantly worse than those of 12-month responders. If loss to follow-up is not addressed, treatment success will likely be overestimated, with erroneously optimistic results being reported.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Traditional Chinese version of the Core Outcome Measures Index in patients with low back pain

PURPOSE

This study aimed to carry out a cross-cultural adaptation of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for use in Traditional Chinese-speaking patients with low back pain (LBP) and to investigate its psychometric properties.

METHODS

A total of 224 patients with LBP > 6 weeks who visited our spine center from May 2018 to May 2019 were included in the study. Patients completed a booklet of questionnaires including the following: (1) pain Numeric Rating Scale, (2) Oswestry Disability Index, (3) Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, (4) EuroQol-five dimension (EQ-5D), and (5) COMI. Patients were sent a second booklet (also containing a transition question to indicate any change in condition) to be completed again within one month after the first. Fifty-two patients did not receive any intervening treatment (group 1), while the other 172 patients received medical treatment (group 2) between the two questionnaires.

RESULTS

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the COMI summary score was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.97); the standard error of measurement (SEM) was 0.41 and the minimum detectable change (MDC) score was 1.14. The COMI summary scores showed a low floor effect (1.8%) and ceiling effect (0.4%). All COMI item scores demonstrated the hypothesized correlations with their corresponding full-length questionnaires except for the pain item (correlation stronger than hypothesized). Standardized response means (SRM) for the COMI items in the treated group were between 0.58 and 1.30. Regarding the ability of the COMI change score to differentiate between good and poor outcomes, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was 0.77 [standard error (SE) 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.84] and the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) score was ≥ 1.85 points.

CONCLUSION

The Traditional Chinese COMI represents a practical and reliable tool for the assessment of Traditional Chinese-speaking patients with back problems.

Development of a mapping function ("crosswalk") for the conversion of scores between the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)

INTRODUCTION

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) are two commonly used self-rating outcome instruments in patients with lumbar spinal disorders. No formal crosswalk between them exists that would otherwise allow the scores of one to be interpreted in terms of the other. We aimed to create such a mapping function.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of ODI and COMI data previously collected from 3324 patients (57 ± 17y; 60.3% female) at baseline and 1y after surgical or conservative treatment. Correlations between scores and Cohen's kappa for agreement (κ) regarding achievement of the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) score on each instrument (ODI, 12.8 points; COMI, 2.2 points) were calculated, and regression models were built. The latter were tested for accuracy in an independent set of registry data from 634 patients (60 ± 15y; 56.8% female).

RESULTS

All pairs of measures were significantly positively correlated (baseline, 0.73; 1y follow-up (FU), 0.84; change-scores, 0.73). MCIC for COMI was achieved in 53.9% patients and for ODI, in 52.4%, with 78% agreement on an individual basis (κ = 0.56). Standard errors for the regression slopes and intercepts were low, indicating excellent prediction at the group level, but root mean square residuals (reflecting individual error) were relatively high. ODI was predicted as COMI × 7.13-4.20 (at baseline), COMI × 6.34 + 2.67 (at FU) and COMI × 5.18 + 1.92 (for change-score); COMI was predicted as ODI × 0.075 + 3.64 (baseline), ODI × 0.113 + 0.96 (FU), and ODI × 0.102 + 1.10 (change-score). ICCs were 0.63-0.87 for derived versus actual scores.

CONCLUSION

Predictions at the group level were very good and met standards justifying the pooling of data. However, we caution against using individual values for treatment decisions, e.g. attempting to monitor patients over time, first with one instrument and then with the other, due to the lower statistical precision at the individual level. The ability to convert scores via the developed mapping function should open up more centres/registries for collaboration and facilitate the combining of data in meta-analyses.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Dutch version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI -back) in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the preferred outcomes measured in patients with lumbar spinal degenerative diseases. As PROMs can be lengthy and therefore pose a burden to patients and researchers, short and standardized PROMs are needed, such as the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI).

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is the Dutch version of the COMI-back a reliable and responsive PROM to measure outcomes in lumbar degenerative spinal surgery?

METHODS

After translating and cross-cultural adapting the COMI-back into Dutch, patients who were on the waiting-list for lumbar decompression surgery in a secondary referral center, were enrolled in the validation study. Patients completed a baseline booklet consisting of the COMI-back, likert scales measuring back and leg pain, the Roland-Morris Disability questionnaire, the EuroQoL-5 dimensions and the WHO-Quality-of-Life-BREF questionnaire to test construct validity. Within 2 weeks and before undergoing surgery, patients completed the COMI-back again, to measure test-retest stability. Three months after surgery, a global treatment outcome (GTO) question and the COMI-back were completed to test responsiveness.

RESULTS

The COMI-back was successfully translated and adapted into Dutch. One-hundred-thirty-five patients completed the baseline booklet, 93 the test-retest questionnaire and 102 the responsiveness questionnaire. The COMI-summary score and four of five COMI-domains, showed good to very good correlation to the reference questionnaires (ρ ​> ​0.41). The COMI-back showed a good test-retest stability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.81 for the summary score. Furthermore, the standard error of agreement was 0.65 and the minimal detectable change was 1.8 points. The ROC-curve showed an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95).

CONCLUSION

The Dutch version of the COMI-back has satisfactory psychometric properties and is a reliable and responsive patient-reported outcome measure in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disease.