The Spine Journal
Volume 10, Issue 6 , Pages 469-474 , June 2010

Neck Disability Index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion

  • Leah Y. Carreon, MD, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray St, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40202, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray St, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40202, USA. Tel.: (502) 584-7525; fax: (502) 584-6851.
    • ,
  • Steven D. Glassman, MD

      Affiliations

    • Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray St, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40202, USA
    • ,
  • Mitchell J. Campbell, MD

      Affiliations

    • Norton Leatherman Spine Center, 210 East Gray St, Suite 900, Louisville, KY 40202, USA
    • ,
  • Paul A. Anderson, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Ave., K4/736, Madison, WI 53792, USA

Received 17 August 2009 ,Revised 8 December 2009 ,Accepted 5 February 2010.

References 

  1. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinical important difference (MCID). A review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541–546
  2. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8:968–974
  3. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407
  4. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:12–20
  5. Osoba D, Rodriques G, Myles J, et al. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:139–144
  6. Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, et al. Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1839–1847
  7. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991 Sep;14:409–415
  8. Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA. The reliability and construct validity of the Neck Disability Index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine. 2006;31:598–602
  9. Pool JJ, Ostelo RW, Hoving JL, et al. Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the numerical rating scale for patients with neck pain. Spine. 2007;32:3047–3051
  10. Stratford PW, Riddle DL, Binkley JM, et al. Using the Neck Disability Index to make decisions concerning individual patients. Physiother Can. 1999;51:107–112
  11. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SK. SF-36 physical and mental health summaries scales: a user's manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute; 1994;
  12. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM. Correlates of improvement in multidisciplinary treatment of chronic pain. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62:172–179
  13. McCarthy MJ, Grevitt MP, Silcocks P, Hobbs G. The reliability of the Vernon and Mior Neck Disability Index, and its validity compared with the short form-36 health survey questionnaire. Eur Spine J. 2007;16:2111–2117
  14. Vernon H. The Neck Disability Index: state-of-the-art, 1991-2008. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31:491–502
  15. Vernon H. The psychometric properties of the Neck Disability Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1414–1415
  16. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36® health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: New England Medical Center, The Health Institute; 1993;
  17. Ware JE. The status of health assessment 1994. Annu Rev Public Health. 1995;16:327–354
  18. Kravitz RL, Greenfield S, Rogers WH, et al. Differences in the mix of patients among medical specialties and systems of care: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. J Am Med Assoc. 1992;267:1617–1623
  19. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36®): II. psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247–263
  20. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, et al. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36® health profiles and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1995;33(Suppl 4):AS264–AS279
  21. Ware JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25:3130–3139
  22. Hanley JA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging. 1989;29:307–335
  23. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med. 1978;8:283–298
  24. Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic analysis: a tool for the quantitative evaluation of observer performance and imaging systems. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006;3:413–422
  25. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982;143:29–36
  26. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York, NY: Wiley, Inc; 2000;
  27. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415
  28. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky F. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 1999;37:469–478
  29. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky F. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:861–873
  30. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health. A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996;
  31. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, et al. Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:400–405
  32. Wells G, Beaton DE, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:406–412

 FDA device/drug status: not applicable.

 Author disclosures: LYC (trips/travel, Medtronic Sofamor Danek); SDG (royalties, Medtronic; consulting, Medtronic; trips/travel, Medtronic; research: staff and/or materials, Medtronic, Norton Healthcare; grants, Norton Healthcare Community Trust Fund; fellowship support, Norton Healthcare); MJC (royalties, Medtronic Sofamor Danek; consulting, Medtronic Sofamor Danek; trips/travel, Medtronic Sofamor Danek; research: staff and/or materials, Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Norton Healthcare; fellowship support, Norton Healthcare); PAA (royalties, Stryker; stock ownership, including options and warrants, Pioneer; private investments, including venture capital, start-ups, Titan, Expanding Orthopedics; consulting, Pioneer, Medtronic; trips/travel, Medtronic; scientific advisory board, Pioneer; grants, NASS).

PII: S1529-9430(10)00106-3

doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.007

The Spine Journal
Volume 10, Issue 6 , Pages 469-474 , June 2010

Article Tools