A review and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures for spasticity in persons with spinal cord damage: Recommendations from the Ability Network - an international initiative

Impact of spasticity on quality of life of Lebanese individuals with spinal cord injury: Validity and reliability of the Arabic modified patient-reported impact of spasticity measure

CONTEXT

Spasticity is one of the most complicated problems after spinal cord injury (SCI). Different assessment tools are used to assess spasticity and its impact on individuals with SCI. The modified Patient-Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (mPRISM) is a recommended tool to measure spasticity in spinal cord damage.

OBJECTIVE

To translate and cross-culturally adapt mPRISM to Arabic and examine its validity and reliability in a sample of Lebanese adults with SCI.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

107 individuals with SCI.

OUTCOME MEASURES

mPRISM.

INTERVENTION

mPRISM was translated into Arabic, and pilot testing of the pre-final version was conducted. Exploratory factor analysis, Poisson regression, and Cronbach's alpha were performed to evaluate the construct and convergent validity and reliability of the Arabic version of mPRISM (AR-mPRISM).

RESULTS

mPRISM was successfully translated and cross-culturally adapted to Arabic. Results of an exploratory factor analysis conducted on the scale showed a coherent 5-domain structure that explained 69.631% of the total variance. Convergent validity was demonstrated by a significant association with sociodemographic and injury correlates. The five extracted subscales demonstrated high internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha > 0.8.

CONCLUSION

Results support the construct and convergent validity and reliability of AR-mPRISM for assessing spasticity impact on the quality of life of Arabic Speaking SCI population.

Review of the Most Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) Studies Published in the Neurospine Surgical Literature

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated tools that are widely utilized in research and patient care. Their diversity, quality, and application remain matters of peak research interest. This article is a review of the PROMs that were utilized in high-impact publications in the neurospine surgical literature. The 50 most cited articles on the subject were selected and analysed. Most (42 articles) were published in spine journals and, in particular, in the journal Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (28 articles). A total of 34 PROMs were utilized, of which 24 were used only once in single studies. The four most common PROMs were Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) (15 articles), Short Form-12 and Short Form-36 (SF-12 and SF-36) (11 articles), Ronald-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) (nine articles), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (five articles). Nineteen articles focused on validating translated versions of 11 PROMs to other languages. The languages that had the maximal number of tools translated to amongst the highly cited articles were Italian (six tools), Portuguese (four tools), German (three tools), and Japanese (three tools). The most common diagnoses and the PROMs used for them were back pain and cervical spine disorder (SF-12 and SF-36 (nine articles), RMDQ (eight articles), and ODI (five articles)), and idiopathic scoliosis (SRS-22) (14 articles)). The median (range) article citation number was 137 (78-675). The four most cited PROMs were SRS-22 (2,869), SF-12 and SF-36 (2,558), RMDQ (1,456), and ODI (852). Citation numbers were positively impacted by article age and participant number but not by tool type or clinical diagnosis. In conclusion, a wide range of PROMs was utilized in the 50 most cited publications in the neurospine surgical literature. The majority were disease-specific rather than generic and targeted particular spine pathology. Neurosurgical PROMs were under-represented amongst the most cited articles. Awareness of the PROMs used in high-impact studies may be helpful in tool selection in future research. PROMs are valuable in standardizing subjective outcomes. Their use in research and clinical settings in any validated language is highly encouraged.

Spasticity evaluation and management tools

Spasticity is a complex and often disabling symptom for patients with upper motor neuron syndromes. Although spasticity arises from neurological disease, it often cascades into muscle and soft tissue changes, which may exacerbate symptoms and further hamper function. Effective management therefore hinges on early recognition and treatment. To this end, the definition of spasticity has expanded over time to more accurately reflect the spectrum of symptoms experienced by persons with this disorder. Once identified, clinical and research quantitative assessments of spasticity are hindered by the uniqueness of presentations both for individuals and for specific neurological diagnoses. Objective measures in isolation often fail to reflect the complex functional impact of spasticity. Multiple tools exist to quantitatively or qualitatively assess the severity of spasticity, including clinician and patient-reported measures as well as electrodiagnostic, mechanical, and ultrasound measures. A combination of objective and patient-reported outcomes is likely required to better reflect the burden of spasticity symptoms in an individual. Therapeutic options exist for the treatment of spasticity along a broad spectrum from nonpharmacologic to interventional procedures. Treatment strategies may include exercise, physical agent modalities, oral medications, injections, pumps, and surgery. Optimal spasticity management most often requires a multimodal approach, combining pharmacological management with interventions that match the functional needs, goals, and preferences of the patient. Physicians and other healthcare providers who manage spasticity must be familiarized with the full array of spasticity interventions and must frequently reassess results of treatment to ensure the patient's goals of treatment are met.

Treatment of spasticity

Spasticity is characterized by an enhanced size and reduced threshold for activation of stretch reflexes and is associated with "positive signs" such as clonus and spasms, as well as "negative features" such as paresis and a loss of automatic postural responses. Spasticity develops over time after a lesion and can be associated with reduced speed of movement, cocontraction, abnormal synergies, and pain. Spasticity is caused by a combination of damage to descending tracts, reductions in inhibitory activity within spinal cord circuits, and adaptive changes within motoneurons. Increased tone, hypertonia, can also be caused by changes in passive stiffness due to, for example, increase in connective tissue and reduction in muscle fascicle length. Understanding the cause of hypertonia is important for determining the management strategy as nonneural, passive causes of stiffness will be more amenable to physical rather than pharmacological interventions. The management of spasticity is determined by the views and goals of the patient, family, and carers, which should be integral to the multidisciplinary assessment. An assessment, and treatment, of trigger factors such as infection and skin breakdown should be made especially in people with a recent change in tone. The choice of management strategies for an individual will vary depending on the severity of spasticity, the distribution of spasticity (i.e., whether it affects multiple muscle groups or is more prominent in one or two groups), the type of lesion, and the potential for recovery. Management options include physical therapy, oral agents; focal therapies such as botulinum injections; and peripheral nerve blocks. Intrathecal baclofen can lead to a reduction in required oral antispasticity medications. When spasticity is severe intrathecal phenol may be an option. Surgical interventions, largely used in the pediatric population, include muscle transfers and lengthening and selective dorsal root rhizotomy.

Setting and maintaining standards for patient-reported outcome measures: can we rely on the COSMIN checklists?

As test-developers we have often been troubled by published reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Too often minor issues are judged important while other reviews exclude the best measures available. Perhaps this led several groups to make recommendations for evaluating the quality of PROMs. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist is the latest set of recommendations. While reviewing the COSMIN literature and reviews conducted using their recommendations several concerns became apparent. The checklist is not evidence-based, relying on the opinion of researchers experienced in health-related quality of life. PROMs measuring other types of outcomes are inadequately covered by the checklist. COSMIN choose to focus on Classical Test Theory and the checklists are not appropriate for use with PROMs developed using modern measurement. Such an approach only obstructs progress in the field of outcome measurement. The retrospective nature of the evaluations also penalizes new PROMs. While the checklists imply that composite, ordinal level measurement is acceptable, crucial aspects of instrument development and quality are excluded. Reviews based on the COSMIN checklist produce contradictory conclusions and fail to provide evidence to support the recommendations. These problems suggest that the checklists themselves lack reliability and validity. It is also clear that several reviewers lack the expertise to apply the checklists. Researchers require a good grounding in instrument development and psychometrics to produce quality reviews. The science of modern PROM development is still in an early phase. Few available PROMs have sufficient quality, limiting the need for complex reviews. Standards need to be agreed for high quality outcome measurement. The issue is who should set these standards? Most published reviews merely scratch the surface and lack essential detail. All reviews of PROMs should be treated with caution, irrespective of whether the COSMIN checklist was employed.