Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The core outcome measures index (COMI) for the back is a questionnaire that evaluates five domains and has been translated into several languages and validated for different populations. We aimed to translate, cross-culturally adapt and validate it in European Portuguese for use in patients with degenerative lumbar disease. Additionally, we aimed to establish the minimal clinically important change score (MCIC)., Methods: The translation and cultural adaptation were done according to published guidelines. Patients awaiting surgery at a neurosurgical center completed the COMI, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D questionnaires and a pain visual analog scale (VAS). To evaluate COMI's reproducibility, patients completed the questionnaire twice within two weeks, preoperatively, in addition to answering a transition question. The MCIC was determined by analysis of postoperative changes in total COMI score, using the anchor method, with a question ascertaining surgical outcome as perceived by the patient., Results: The first set of questionnaires was answered by 108 patients and the second, by 98 patients. COMI's construct validity was confirmed by demonstrating the hypothesized correlation between each domain's score (Spearman Rho > 0.4) and the corresponding questionnaire score (ODI, EQ-5D and VAS) and through adequate correlation (Spearman > 0.6) between COMI's total score and ODI and EQ-5D total scores. Intraclass correlation coefficients between each domain and COMI's total score were > 0.8. The MCIC was calculated as 2.1., Conclusion: The cross-culturally adapted COMI questionnaire is a valid clinical assessment tool for European Portuguese-speaking patients with degenerative lumbar disease, with an MCIC of 2.1 points., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)