Surgeon Reported Outcome Measure for Spine Trauma: An International Expert Survey Identifying Parameters Relevant for the Outcome of Subaxial Cervical Spine Injuries

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.

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.

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.

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.

Association of Patient-reported Outcomes With Clinical Outcomes After Distal Humerus Fracture Treatment

In this study, we assessed the patient-reported outcomes of distal humerus fracture treatment using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) or QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) scores and the association between patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 76 adult patients who sustained an acute distal humerus fracture between 2016 and 2018; 53 patients completed at least one patient-reported outcome measure used to assess physical function (PF) during their routine follow-up care (69.7% response rate). The average time to follow-up patient-reported outcome measure was 10.3 months. Patients completed the PROMIS PF 10a, PROMIS upper extremity (UE) 16a, and/or QuickDASH based on the treating institution/service. In addition, the PROMIS Global (Mental) subscale score was used as a measure of self-rated mental health. To assess clinical outcomes, we measured radiographic union, range of motion, and postoperative complications.

Results

Most fractures were intra-articular (67.9%), and 84.9% were treated surgically. After treatment, 98.1% of fractures united radiographically. By the final follow-up, the average arc of motion was 18° to 122°. Average (±SD) PROMIS PF and UE scores were 41.7 ± 11.1 and 40.8 ± 12.4, respectively. The average QuickDASH score was 39.4 ± 26.5. The arc of flexion-extension and PROMIS Global (Mental) score were independently associated with PROMIS PF and PROMIS UE scores.

Conclusions

We found that clinical factors (the arc of flexion-extension) and patient psychological factors (PROMIS Global [Mental] score) were independently associated with PROMIS measures of PF after distal humerus fracture treatment. These data can be used to contextualize patient outcomes and guide patient expectations.

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.