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.

Shorter and sweeter: the 16-item version of the SRS questionnaire shows better structural validity than the 20-item version in young patients with spinal deformity

PURPOSE

In patients with adult spinal deformity, it was previously shown that 16 of the non-management items of the SRS-instrument showed a better fit to the theoretical four-factor model (pain, function, self-image, mental health) than did all 20 items. Whether the same phenomenon is observed in data from younger (< 20y) patients, for whom the questionnaire was originally designed, is not currently known.

METHODS

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the factor structure of the 20 non-management items of the SRS-instrument completed by 3618 young patients with spinal deformity (75.5% female; mean age, 15.0 ± 2.0 years) and of its equivalence across language versions (2713 English-speaking, 270 Spanish, 264 German, 223 Italian, and 148 French). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and comparative fit index (CFI) indicated model fit.

RESULTS

Compared with the 20-item version, the 16-item solution significantly increased the fit (p < 0.001) across all language versions, to achieve good model fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06). For both 16-item and 20-item models, equivalence across languages was not reached, with some items showing weaker item-loading for some languages, in particular German and French.

CONCLUSION

In patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, the shorter 16-item version showed a better fit to the intended 4-factor structure of the SRS-instrument. The wording of some of the items, and/or their equivalence across language versions, may need to be addressed. Questionnaire completion can be a burden for patients; if a shorter, more structurally valid version is available, its use should be encouraged.

Factors associated with having an indication for surgery in adult spinal deformity: an international european multicentre study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate factors that distinguish between patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) with and without an indication for surgery, irrespective of their final treatment.

METHODS

Baseline variables (demographics, medical history, outcome measures, coronal, sagittal and neurologic parameters) were evaluated in a multicentre, prospective cohort of patients with ASD. Multivariable analyses were carried out for idiopathic and degenerative patients separately with the dependent variable being "indication for surgery" and baseline parameters as independent variables.

RESULTS

In total, 342 patients with degenerative ASD and 624 patients with idiopathic ASD were included in the multivariable models. In patients with degenerative ASD, the parameters associated with having an indication for surgery were greater self-rated disability on the Oswestry Disability Index [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.07] and a lower thoracic kyphosis (OR 0.97 95% CI 0.95-0.99), whereas in patients with idiopathic ASD, it was lower (worse) SRS self-image scores (OR 0.45 95% CI 0.32-0.64), a higher value for the major Cobb angle (OR 1.03 95% CI 1.01-1.05), lower age (OR 0.96 95% CI 0.95-0.98), prior decompression (OR 3.76 95% CI 1.00-14.08), prior infiltration (OR 2.23 95% CI 1.12-4.43), and the presence of rotatory subluxation (OR 1.98 95% CI 1.11-3.54) and sagittal subluxation (OR 4.38 95% CI 1.61-11.95).

CONCLUSION

Specific sets of variables were found to be associated with an indication for surgery in patients with ASD. These should be investigated in relation to patient outcomes for their potential to guide the future development of decision aids in the treatment of ASD. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Factor analysis of the SRS-22 outcome assessment instrument in patients with adult spinal deformity

PURPOSE

Designed for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, the SRS-22 is now widely used as an outcome instrument in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). No studies have confirmed the four-factor structure (pain, function, self-image, mental health) of the SRS-22 in ASD and under different contexts. Factorial invariance of an instrument over time and in different languages is essential to allow for precise interpretations of treatment success and comparisons across studies. This study sought to evaluate the invariance of the SRS-22 structure across different languages and sub-groups of ASD patients.

METHODS

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the 20 non-management items of the SRS-22 with data from 245 American English-, 428 Spanish-, 229 Turkish-, 95 French-, and 195 German-speaking patients. Item loading invariance was compared across languages, age groups, etiologies, treatment groups, and assessment times. A separate sample of SRS-22 data from 772 American surgical patients with ASD was used for cross-validation.

RESULTS

The factor structure fitted significantly better to the proposed four-factor solution than to a unifactorial solution. However, items 14 (personal relationships), 15 (financial difficulties), and 17 (days off work) consistently showed weak item loading within their factors across all language versions and in both baseline and follow-up datasets. A trimmed SRS (16 non-management items) that used the four least problematic items in each of the four domains yielded better-fitting models across all languages, but equivalence was still not reached. With this shorter version there was equivalence of item loading with respect to treatment (surgery vs conservative), time of assessment (baseline vs 12 months follow-up), and etiology (degenerative vs idiopathic), but not age (< vs ≥50 years). All findings were confirmed in the cross-validation sample.

CONCLUSION

We recommend removal of the worst-fitting items from each of the four domains of the SRS-instrument (items 3, 14, 15, 17), together with adaptation and standardization of other items across language versions, to provide an improved version of the instrument with just 16 non-management items.