Advertisement

Are the results of patient reported outcome measures after spine surgery influenced by recall of preoperative scores? – a randomized controlled trial

  • Pedro Valente Aguiar
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author: Dr. Pedro Daniel Valente Aguiar, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Rua Serafim Ferreira dos Santos 19, 2o esquerdo, 4445 – 666 Ermesinde, Portugal
    Affiliations
    Neurosurgery Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal

    Faculty of Medicine, Porto University, Porto, Portugal
    Search for articles by this author
  • Pedro Santos Silva
    Affiliations
    Neurosurgery Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal

    Faculty of Medicine, Porto University, Porto, Portugal
    Search for articles by this author
  • Rui Vaz
    Affiliations
    Neurosurgery Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal

    Faculty of Medicine, Porto University, Porto, Portugal

    Neurosciences Centre, CUF Porto, Portugal
    Search for articles by this author
  • Paulo Pereira
    Affiliations
    Neurosurgery Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal

    Faculty of Medicine, Porto University, Porto, Portugal

    Neurosciences Centre, CUF Porto, Portugal
    Search for articles by this author
Published:November 15, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2022.11.007

      Abstract

      Background context

      Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are of utmost importance to clinical practice as they permit a patient-focused evaluation of surgical outcomes. However, recall bias can limit an adequate interpretation of PROMs.

      Purpose

      To assess the impact of recall bias of preoperative status on postoperative PROMs of patients submitted to surgery due to degenerative spine disease.

      Study design / setting

      Randomized controlled trial in a tertiary care neurosurgical unit in Portugal

      Patient sample

      All patients submitted to surgery at our institution from January 2019 to April 2020 due to degenerative lumbar or cervical spine disease with valid PROMs questionnaires were enrolled, and two computer generated randomized groups were created.

      Outcome Measures

      The study´s primary endpoint was the median postoperative Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) score.

      Methods

      The intervention group was sent postoperative questionnaires including preoperative answers, while patients in the control group were sent the same PROMs without the preoperative answers.

      Results

      Randomization was applied to 236 patients (118 for each group) and valid results were obtained for 147 patients (81 lumbar, 44 from the intervention group; and 66 cervical, 29 from the intervention group), from which 88 (60%) were females, with a median age of 58 years.
      Both groups shared similar baseline clinical characteristics and preoperative scores. Median postoperative COMI scores and interquartile ranges (IQR) were 4.20 (IQR: 2.30-6.00) and 5.45 (IQR: 3.75-7.40) for the intervention and control groups, respectively (Wilcoxon, p=0.02). This difference was reached mainly due to cervical spine patients as median postoperative COMI score was 3.95 (IQR: 2.20-5.32) in the intervention group and 5.1 (IQR: 4.0-8.4) in the control group (Wilcoxon, p=0.01). No significant difference was reached for lumbar patients.

      Conclusions

      Better PROMs scores were obtained for degenerative cervical spine patients to whom the preoperative results were provided. Therefore, providing preoperative scores to patients upon postoperative PROMs fulfilment might influence postoperative results. Further research is necessary to increase the reliability of PROMs in clinical practice.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Spine Journal
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • McCormick JD
        • Werner BC
        • Shimer AL.
        Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery.
        J Am AcadOrthop Surg. 2013; 21: 99-107https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-21-02-99
        • Nayak NR
        • Coats JM
        • Abdullah KG
        • Stein SC
        • Malhotra NR.
        Tracking patient-reported outcomes in spinal disorders.
        Surg Neurol Int. 2015; 6 (Suppl): S490-S499https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.166892
        • Basch E
        • Deal AM
        • Kris MG
        • Scher H I
        • Clifford AH
        • Sabbatini P
        • Rogak L
        • Bennett AV
        • Dueck AC
        • Atkinson TM
        • Chou JC
        • Dulko D
        • SitL Barz A
        • Novotny P
        • Fruscione P
        • Sloan JA
        Schrag D Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
        J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 557-565https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830
        • Baeksted C
        • Pappot H
        • Nissen A
        • Hjollund NH
        • Mitchell SA
        • Basch E
        • Bidstrup PE
        • Dalton SO
        • Johansen C.
        Feasibility and acceptability of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Danish prostate cancer patients.
        J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017; 1: 1https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0005-6
        • Girgis A
        • Durcinoska I
        • Levesque JV
        • Gerges M
        • Sandell T
        • Arnold A
        • Delaney GP
        PROMPT-Care Programe Group. eHealth System for Collecting and Utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care) Among Cancer Patients: Mixed Methods Approach to Evaluate Feasibility and Acceptability.
        J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19 (-e330): e330https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8360
        • Nguyen H
        • Butow P
        • Dhillon H
        • Sundaresan P.
        A review of the barriers to using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care.
        J Med Radiat Sci. 2021; 68: 186-195https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.421
        • Aleem IS
        • Currier BL
        • Yaszemski MJ
        • Poppendeck H
        • Huddleston P
        • Eck J
        • Rhee J
        • Bydon M
        • Freedman B
        • Nassr A.
        Do Cervical Spine Surgery Patients Recall Their Preoperative Status?.
        Clinical Spine Surgery: A Spine Publication. 2018; 31 (2018/12): E481-E487https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000726
        • Aleem IS
        • Duncan J
        • Ahmed AM
        • Zarrabian M
        • Eck J
        • Rhee J
        • Clarke M
        • Currier BL
        • Nassr A.
        Do Lumbar Decompression and Fusion Patients Recall Their Preoperative Status?.
        Spine. 2017; 42 (2017/01/15): 128-134https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001682
        • Rodrigues R
        • Silva PS
        • Cunha M
        • Vaz R
        • Pereira P.
        Can We Assess the Success of Surgery for Degenerative Spinal Diseases Using Patients' Recall of Their Preoperative Status?.
        World Neurosurgery. 2018; 115 (2018/07): e768-e773https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2018.04.174
        • Schulz KF
        • Altman DG
        • Moher D
        • for the CONSORT Group
        CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
        Ann Int Med. 2010; 152 (PMID: 20335313): 726-732
        • Calvert M
        • Blazeby J
        • Altman DG
        • Revicki DA
        • Moher D
        • Brundage MD
        • CONSORT PRO Group
        Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension.
        JAMA. 2013; 309: 814-822https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.879
        • Mannion AF
        • Porchet F
        • Kleinstuck FS
        • Lattig F
        • Jeszenszky D
        • Bartanusz V
        • Dvorak J
        • Grob D.
        The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.
        Eur Spine J. 2009; 18 (Suppl 3Suppl): 374-379https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0931-y
        • Parker S.L.
        • Adogwa O.
        • Paul A.R.
        • Anderson W.N.
        • Aaronson O.
        • Cheng J.S.
        • McGirt M.J.
        Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2011; 14: 598-604https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.12.SPINE10472
        • Coretti S
        • Ruggeri M
        • McNamee P.
        The minimum clinically important difference for EQ-5D index: a critical review.
        Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014; 14 (Apr): 221-233https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.2014.894462
        • Broekema AEH
        • Molenberg R
        • Kuijlen JMA
        • Groen RJM
        • Reneman MF
        • Soer R.
        The Odom Criteria: Validated at Last.
        Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2019; 101 (2019/07/17): 1301-1308https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.18.00370
        • Damasceno LHF
        • Rocha PAG
        • Barbosa ES
        • Barros CAM
        • Canto FT
        • Delfino HLA
        • Mannion AF.
        Cross-cultural adaptation and assessment of the reliability and validity of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the Brazilian-Portuguese language.
        Eur Spine J. 2012; 21: 1273-1282https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2100-3
        • Mannion AF
        • Impellizzeri FM
        • Leunig-Jeszenszy D
        • Becker HJ
        • Haschtmann D
        • Preiss S
        • Fekete TF
        • EUROSPINE M
        FULL PAPER AWARD: Time to remove our rose-tinted spectacles: a candid appraisal of the relative success of surgery in over 4500 patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, hip or knee.
        Eur Spine J. 2017; 27: 778-788https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5469-4
        • Parker SL
        • Godil SS
        • Shau DN
        • Mendenhall SK
        • McGirt MJ.
        Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article.
        J Neurosurg Spine. Feb 2013; 18: 154-160https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12312
        • Pereira M
        • Cruz EB
        • Domingues L
        • Duarte S
        • Carnide F
        • Fernandes R.
        Responsiveness and Interpretability of the Portuguese Version of the Neck Disability Index in Patients With Chronic Neck Pain Undergoing Physiotherapy.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40 (Nov): E1180-E1186https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001034
        • Kato S
        • Oshima Y
        • Matsubayashi Y
        • Taniguchi Y
        • Tanaka S
        • Takeshita K.
        Minimum clinically important difference in outcome scores among patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty.
        Eur Spine J. 2019; 28 (May): 1234-1241https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05945-y
        • Gotlin MJ
        • Kingery MT
        • Baron SL
        • McCafferty J
        • Jazrawi LM
        • Meislin RJ.
        Recall Bias in Retrospective Assessment of Preoperative Patient-Reported American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Scores in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Surgery.
        The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020; 48 (2020/04/07): 1471-1475https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546520913491
        • Lingard EA
        • Wright EA
        • Sledge CB.
        Pitfalls of Using Patient Recall to Derive Preoperative Status in Outcome Studies of Total Knee Arthroplasty.
        The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American. 2001; 83 (Volume. 2001/08): 1149-1156https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200108000-00003
        • Pellisé F
        • Vidal X
        • Hernández A
        • Cedraschi C
        • Bagó J
        • Villanueva C.
        Reliability of Retrospective Clinical Data to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Lumbar Fusion in Chronic Low Back Pain.
        Spine. 2005; 30 (2005/02): 365-368https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000152096.48237.7c
        • Dawson EG
        • Kanim LEA
        • Sra P
        • Dorey F
        • Goldstein TB
        • Delamarter RB
        • Sandhu HS.
        Low Back Pain Recollection Versus Concurrent Accounts.
        Spine. 2002/05. 2002; 27: 984-993https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200205010-00020
        • Yasseri T
        • Reher J.
        Fooled by facts: quantifying anchoring bias through a large-scale experiment.
        J Comput Soc Sc. 2022; (5): 1001-1021https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00158-0