Most efficient questionnaires to measure quality of life, physical function, and pain in patients with metastatic spine disease: a cross-sectional prospective survey study
Assessing quality of life, functional outcome, and pain has become important in assessing the effectiveness of treatment for metastatic spine disease. Many questionnaires are able to measure these outcomes, few are validated in patients with metastatic spine disease. As a result, there is no consensus on the ideal questionnaire to use in these patients.
Our study aims were to assess whether certain questionnaires measuring quality of life, functional outcome, and pain (1) correlated with each other, (2) measured the construct they claim to measure, (3) had good coverage -flooring and ceiling effect, (4) were reliable, and (5) whether there were differences in completion time between them.
Prospective cross-sectional survey study from three outpatient clinics (two orthopedic oncology clinics, one neurosurgery clinic) from two affiliated tertiary hospital care centers.
We included 100 consecutive patients with metastatic spine disease between July 2014 and February 2016. We excluded non-English speaking patients.
The following questionnaires were given in random order: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Neck Disability Index (NDI), PROMIS Physical Function, PROMIS Pain Intensity, EuroQol 5-dimensions (EQ-5D), and the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcome Questionnaire (SOSG-OQ).
We used exploratory factor analysis -correlating questionnaires with an underlying mathematically derived trait- to assess if questionnaires measured the same concept. Coverage was assessed by floor and ceiling effect, and reliability by the standard error of measurement (SEM) as a function of ability. Difference in completion time was tested using the Friedman test.
Questionnaires measured the construct they were developed for, as demonstrated with high correlations (> 0.7) with the underlying trait. A floor effect was present in the PROMIS Pain Intensity (7.0%), ODI/NDI (4.0%), and the PROMIS Physical Function (1.0%) questionnaires. A ceiling effect was present in the EQ-5D questionnaire (6.0%). The SOSG-OQ had no floor or ceiling effect. The PROMIS Physical Function and PROMIS Pain Intensity proved to be most reliable, whereas the EQ-5D was least reliable. Completion time differed among questionnaires (p < 0.001) and was shortest for the PROMIS Pain Intensity (median 24 seconds) and PROMIS Physical Function (median 42 seconds).
In patients with metastatic spine disease, we recommend the SOSG-OQ for measuring quality of life, the PROMIS Physical Function for measuring physical function, and the PROMIS Pain Intensity for measuring pain intensity.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2017.
All research outputs
#28,673,267
of 34,451,315 outputs
Outputs from Spine Journal
#2,997
of 4,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,363
of 353,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Spine Journal
#26
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,451,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
