Universal disease-specific outcome instruments for spine trauma: a global perspective on relevant parameters to evaluate clinical and functional outcomes of thoracic and lumbar spine trauma patients

Validation of the AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting

PURPOSE

To evaluate feasibility, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and prospective validity of AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting.

METHODS

Patients were included from four trauma centers. Two surgeons with substantial amount of experience in spine trauma care were included from each center. Two separate questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6-months and 1-year: one to surgeons (mainly CROST) and another to patients (AO Spine PROST-Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and feasibility, Cronbach's α for internal consistency. Inter-rater reliability through exact agreement, Kappa statistics and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Prospective analysis, and relationships between CROST and PROST were explored through descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations.

RESULTS

In total, 92 patients were included. CROST showed excellent feasibility results. Internal consistency (α = 0.58-0.70) and reliability (ICC = 0.52 and 0.55) were moderate. Mean total scores between surgeons only differed 0.2-0.9 with exact agreement 48.9-57.6%. Exact agreement per CROST item showed good results (73.9-98.9%). Kappa statistics revealed moderate agreement for most CROST items. In the prospective analysis a trend was only seen when no concerns at all were expressed by the surgeon (CROST = 0), and moderate to strong positive Spearman correlations were found between CROST at baseline and the scores at follow-up (rs = 0.41-0.64). Comparing the CROST with PROST showed no specific association, nor any Spearman correlations (rs = -0.33-0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

The AO Spine CROST showed moderate validity in a true clinical setting including patients from the daily clinical practice.

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma)

PURPOSE

To validate the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).

METHODS

Patients were recruited from two level-1 trauma centers from the Netherlands. Next to the AOSpine PROST, patients also filled out SF-36 for concurrent validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the characteristics. Content validity was assessed by evaluating the number of inapplicable or missing questions. Also floor and ceiling effects were analyzed. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach's α and item-total correlation coefficients (itcc). Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation with SF-36. Test-retest reliability was analyzed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by calculating effect sizes (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST.

RESULTS

Out of 179 enrolled patients, 163 (91.1%) were included. Good results were obtained for content validity. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.96, itcc 0.50-0.86), with also good Spearman correlations (0.25-0.79). Compared to SF-36, the strongest correlation was seen for physical functioning (0.79; p < .001). Also test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92). Concerning responsiveness analysis, very good results were seen with ES = 1.81 and SRM = 2.03 (p < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigenvalues > 1), explaining 65.4% of variance.

CONCLUSIONS

Very satisfactory results were obtained for reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST. Treating surgeons are encouraged to use this novel and validated tool in clinical setting and research to contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care.

Development and reliability of the AOSpine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma): a tool to evaluate and predict outcomes from clinician's perspective

PURPOSE

To report on the development of AOSpine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) and results of an initial reliability study.

METHODS

The AOSpine CROST was developed using an iterative approach of multiple cycles of development, review, and revision including an expert clinician panel. Subsequently, a reliability study was performed among an expert panel who were provided with 20 spine trauma cases, administered twice with 4-week interval. The results of the developmental process were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the reliability per parameter using Kappa statistics, inter-rater rater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and internal consistency using Cronbach's α.

RESULTS

The AOSpine CROST was developed and consisted of 10 parameters, 2 of which are only applicable for surgically treated patents ('Wound healing' and 'Implants'). A dichotomous scoring system ('yes' or 'no' response) was incorporated to express expected problems for the short term and long term. In the reliability study, 16 (84.2%) participated in the first round and 14 (73.7%) in the second. Intra-rater reliability was fair to good for both time points (κ = 0.40-0.80 and κ = 0.31-0.67). Results of inter-rater reliability were lower (κ = 0.18-0.60 and κ = 0.16-0.46). Inter-rater agreement for total scores showed moderate results (ICC = 0.52-0.60), and the internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.76-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

The AOSpine CROST, an outcome tool for the surgeons, was developed using an iterative process. An initial reliability analysis showed fair to moderate results and acceptable internal consistency. Further clinical validation studies will be performed to further validate the tool.

The Need of Validated Disease-Specific Outcome Instruments for Spine Trauma

This article focuses on patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in spine trauma care. The measurement of the quality of care and functional and health-related quality of life outcomes of spine trauma patients has become increasingly important. However, no outcome instrument is specifically designed, validated, or universally adapted for this specific patient population. Issues specific to spinal trauma patients may not be adequately addressed by the instruments that are currently used in the literature and the daily clinical practice. The AOSpine Knowledge Forum Trauma initiated a project to develop and validate such instruments for spine trauma patients. To reflect the different perspectives of patients and the treating surgeons, 2 separate tools are being developed: the Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine PROST) and Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma (AOSpine CROST). These tools hold promise, as useful instruments to measure the outcomes of spine trauma patients with and without neurological deficit, making it more feasible for clinical use as well. Treating surgeons around the world are encouraged to use the AOSpine PROST and AOSpine CROST in daily clinical practice and for research purposes to create and contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care. Using the same outcome measures that are specifically developed and validated for traumatic spine injuries will allow us to compare the outcomes of various treatments in a valid and reproducible fashion. This contributes to a reduction of the ongoing controversies and providing the best treatments for our patients.