用于量化脊髓型颈椎病严重程度和术后改善的七种不同量表的比较。

Journal of outcome measurement Pub Date : 2001-01-01
A Singh, H A Crockard
{"title":"用于量化脊髓型颈椎病严重程度和术后改善的七种不同量表的比较。","authors":"A Singh,&nbsp;H A Crockard","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Considerable uncertainty exists over the benefit that patients receive from surgical decompressive treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Such difficulties might be addressed by accurate quantification of CSM severity as part of a trial determining the outcome of surgery in different patient groups. This study compares the applicability of various existing quantitative severity scales to measurement of CSM severity and the effects on severity of surgical decompression. Scores on the following scales were determined on 100 patients with CSM preoperatively and then again six months following surgical decompression: Odom's Criteria, Nurick grade, Ranawat grade, Myelopathy Disability Index (MDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Score, European Myelopathy Score (EMS) and Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF36). All the scales showed significant improvement following surgery. However, each had differing qualities of reliability, validity and responsiveness that made them more or less suitable. The MDI showed the greatest sensitivity between different severity levels, sensitivity to operative change and reliability. However, analysis of all the questionnaire scales into components that looked at different aspects of function revealed potential problems with redundancy and a lack of consistency. This prospective observational study provides a rational basis for determining the advantages and disadvantages of different existing scales in measurement of CSM severity and for making adaptations to develop a scale more specifically suited to a comprehensive surgical trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":79673,"journal":{"name":"Journal of outcome measurement","volume":"5 1","pages":"798-818"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of seven different scales used to quantify severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and post-operative improvement.\",\"authors\":\"A Singh,&nbsp;H A Crockard\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Considerable uncertainty exists over the benefit that patients receive from surgical decompressive treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Such difficulties might be addressed by accurate quantification of CSM severity as part of a trial determining the outcome of surgery in different patient groups. This study compares the applicability of various existing quantitative severity scales to measurement of CSM severity and the effects on severity of surgical decompression. Scores on the following scales were determined on 100 patients with CSM preoperatively and then again six months following surgical decompression: Odom's Criteria, Nurick grade, Ranawat grade, Myelopathy Disability Index (MDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Score, European Myelopathy Score (EMS) and Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF36). All the scales showed significant improvement following surgery. However, each had differing qualities of reliability, validity and responsiveness that made them more or less suitable. The MDI showed the greatest sensitivity between different severity levels, sensitivity to operative change and reliability. However, analysis of all the questionnaire scales into components that looked at different aspects of function revealed potential problems with redundancy and a lack of consistency. This prospective observational study provides a rational basis for determining the advantages and disadvantages of different existing scales in measurement of CSM severity and for making adaptations to develop a scale more specifically suited to a comprehensive surgical trial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79673,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of outcome measurement\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"798-818\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of outcome measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of outcome measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于脊髓型颈椎病(CSM)患者接受手术减压治疗的获益,存在相当大的不确定性。这些困难可以通过精确量化CSM严重程度来解决,作为确定不同患者组手术结果的试验的一部分。本研究比较了现有各种定量严重程度量表在CSM严重程度测量中的适用性以及对手术减压严重程度的影响。对100例CSM患者进行术前和术后6个月的评分:Odom标准、Nurick评分、Ranawat评分、脊髓病残疾指数(MDI)、日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、欧洲脊髓病评分(EMS)和sf -36健康调查(SF36)。术后所有量表均有明显改善。然而,每一种都有不同的可靠性、有效性和响应性,这使它们或多或少地适合。MDI在不同严重程度、手术改变敏感性和可靠性之间表现出最大的敏感性。然而,对所有问卷量表的分析显示了潜在的冗余和缺乏一致性的问题。这项前瞻性观察性研究为确定现有不同量表在测量脊髓型颈椎病严重程度方面的优缺点,并为制定更适合综合外科试验的量表提供了合理的依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of seven different scales used to quantify severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and post-operative improvement.

Considerable uncertainty exists over the benefit that patients receive from surgical decompressive treatment for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Such difficulties might be addressed by accurate quantification of CSM severity as part of a trial determining the outcome of surgery in different patient groups. This study compares the applicability of various existing quantitative severity scales to measurement of CSM severity and the effects on severity of surgical decompression. Scores on the following scales were determined on 100 patients with CSM preoperatively and then again six months following surgical decompression: Odom's Criteria, Nurick grade, Ranawat grade, Myelopathy Disability Index (MDI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Score, European Myelopathy Score (EMS) and Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF36). All the scales showed significant improvement following surgery. However, each had differing qualities of reliability, validity and responsiveness that made them more or less suitable. The MDI showed the greatest sensitivity between different severity levels, sensitivity to operative change and reliability. However, analysis of all the questionnaire scales into components that looked at different aspects of function revealed potential problems with redundancy and a lack of consistency. This prospective observational study provides a rational basis for determining the advantages and disadvantages of different existing scales in measurement of CSM severity and for making adaptations to develop a scale more specifically suited to a comprehensive surgical trial.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of seven different scales used to quantify severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and post-operative improvement. The impact of rater effects on weighted composite scores under nested and spiraled scoring designs, using the multifaceted Rasch model. Measuring disability: application of the Rasch model to activities of daily living (ADL/IADL). Competency gradient for child-parent centers. Alternate forms reliability of the assessment of motor and process skills.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1