Suppr超能文献

《颈椎核心结局测量指标(COMI)的有效性和反应度》

Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck.

机构信息

Spine Center, Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland.

出版信息

Eur Spine J. 2012 Jan;21(1):101-14. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1921-4. Epub 2011 Aug 20.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Patient-orientated outcome questionnaires are essential to evaluate treatment success. To compare different treatments, hospitals, and surgeons, standardised questionnaires are required. The present study examined the validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measurement Index for neck pain (COMI-neck), a short, multidimensional outcome instrument.

METHODS

Questionnaires were completed by patients with degenerative problems of the cervical spine undergoing cervical disc arthroplasty before (N = 89) and 3 months after (N = 75) surgery. The questionnaires comprised the EuroQol-Five Dimension (EQ-5D), the North American Spine Society Cervical Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument (NASS-cervical) and the COMI-neck.

RESULTS

The COMI and NASS-cervical scores displayed no notable floor or ceiling effects at any time point whereas for the EQ-5D, the highest values [corrected] were reached in around 32.5% of patients at follow-up. With one exception (symptom-specific well-being), the individual COMI items and the COMI summary score correlated to the expected extent (R = 0.4-0.8) with the scores of the chosen reference questionnaires. The area under the curve (AUC) generated by ROC analysis was significantly higher for the COMI (0.96) than for any other instrument/subscale when self reported treatment outcome was used as the external criterion, dichotomised as "good" (operation helped a lot/helped) versus "poor" (operation helped only a little/didn't help/made things worse). The COMI had a high effect size (standardised response mean; SRM) (2.34) for the good global outcome group and a low SRM for the poor outcome group (0.34). The EQ-5D and the NASS-cervical lacked this ability to differentiate between the two groups, showing less distinct SRMs for good and poor outcome groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that the COMI-neck is a valid and responsive questionnaire in the population of patients examined. Further investigations should examine its applicability in other patient groups with less severe neck pain or undergoing other treatment modalities.

摘要

目的

以患者为导向的结局问卷对于评估治疗成功至关重要。为了比较不同的治疗方法、医院和外科医生,需要使用标准化的问卷。本研究旨在检验颈椎退行性疾病患者接受颈椎间盘置换术前后(术前:89 例;术后 3 个月:75 例)使用简短多维结局工具——核心结局测量指标颈椎痛(COMI-neck)的有效性和反应度。

方法

使用欧洲五维健康量表(EQ-5D)、北美脊柱协会颈椎结局评估量表(NASS-cervical)和 COMI-neck 对患者进行问卷调查。

结果

COMI 和 NASS-cervical 评分在任何时间点均无明显地板或天花板效应,而 EQ-5D 在随访时达到最高值的患者约占 32.5%。除了一项(症状特异性幸福感),COMI 的各个项目和 COMI 总分与所选参考问卷的评分呈预期的相关性(R = 0.4-0.8)。当使用自我报告的治疗结果作为外部标准,将其分为“良好”(手术帮助很大/有帮助)和“较差”(手术仅略有帮助/无帮助/情况更糟)时,COMI 产生的 ROC 分析曲线下面积(AUC)显著高于任何其他仪器/亚量表(0.96)。COMI 在良好总体结局组中具有较高的效应量(标准化反应均数;SRM)(2.34),在结局较差组中具有较低的 SRM(0.34)。EQ-5D 和 NASS-cervical 缺乏这种区分两组的能力,对良好和较差结局组的 SRM 区分度较低。

结论

本研究为 COMI-neck 在研究人群中是一种有效的、有反应的问卷提供了证据。进一步的研究应考察其在其他疼痛程度较轻的患者群体或接受其他治疗方法的患者群体中的适用性。

相似文献

1
Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck.
Eur Spine J. 2012 Jan;21(1):101-14. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1921-4. Epub 2011 Aug 20.
5
Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index.
Eur Spine J. 2012 Aug;21 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):S737-49. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1741-6. Epub 2011 Mar 17.
8
Validity of the Japanese core outcome measures index (COMI)-neck for cervical spine surgery: a prospective cohort study.
Eur Spine J. 2021 Feb;30(2):402-409. doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06657-4. Epub 2020 Nov 19.
9
The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice.
Eur Spine J. 2009 Aug;18 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):367-73. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-0942-8. Epub 2009 Mar 25.

引用本文的文献

3
A COSMIN systematic review of generic patient-reported outcome measures in Switzerland.
Qual Life Res. 2025 Apr 7. doi: 10.1007/s11136-025-03942-x.
5
How well can the clinician appraise the patient's perception of the severity and impact of their back problem?
Eur Spine J. 2024 Jan;33(1):39-46. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-08023-6. Epub 2023 Nov 18.

本文引用的文献

2
Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey.
Qual Life Res. 2010 Aug;19(6):853-64. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9639-z. Epub 2010 Mar 31.
4
Great expectations: really the novel predictor of outcome after spinal surgery?
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Jul 1;34(15):1590-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819fcd52.
5
An evidence-based approach to the adoption of new technology.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 May;91 Suppl 3:95-8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01593.
6
SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses.
Eur Spine J. 2009 Jun;18(6):851-61. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-0934-8. Epub 2009 Mar 20.
8
The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results.
Eur Spine J. 2008 Sep;17(9):1201-9. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0665-2. Epub 2008 Apr 30.
9
Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version.
Value Health. 2008 Mar-Apr;11(2):275-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验