{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,4]],"date-time":"2026-10-04T04:57:52Z","timestamp":1791089872865,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":30,"publisher":"Journal of Neurosurgery Publishing Group (JNSPG)","issue":"5","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["SPI"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013,11]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>Object<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures have become the mainstay for outcome appraisal in spine surgery. Clinically meaningful interpretation of HRQOL improvement has centered on the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). The purpose of this study was to calculate clinically important deterioration (CIDET) thresholds and determine a CIDET value for each HRQOL measure for patients undergoing lumbar fusion.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>Seven hundred twenty-two patients (248 males, 127 smokers, mean age 60.8 years) were identified with complete preoperative and 1-year postoperative HRQOLs including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and numeric rating scales (0\u201310) for back and leg pain following primary, instrumented, posterior lumbar fusion. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to calculate CIDET for each HRQOL. Anchor-based methods included change score, change difference, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The Health Transition Item, an independent item of the SF-36, was used as the external anchor. Patients who responded \u201csomewhat worse\u201d and \u201cmuch worse\u201d were combined and compared with patients responding \u201cabout the same.\u201d Distribution-based methods were minimum detectable change and effect size.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>Diagnoses included spondylolisthesis (n = 332), scoliosis (n = 54), instability (n = 37), disc pathology (n = 146), and stenosis (n = 153). There was a statistically significant change (p &lt; 0.0001) for each HRQOL measure from preoperatively to 1-year postoperatively. Only 107 patients (15%) reported being \u201csomewhat worse\u201d (n = 81) or \u201cmuch worse\u201d (n = 26). Calculation methods yielded a range of CIDET values for ODI (0.17\u20139.06), SF-36 physical component summary (\u22120.32 to 4.43), back pain (0.02\u20131.50), and leg pain (0.02\u20131.50).<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>\n<jats:sec>\n<jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n<jats:p>A threshold for clinical deterioration was difficult to identify. This may be due to the small number of patients reporting being worse after surgery and the variability across methods to determine CIDET thresholds. Overall, it appears that patients may interpret the absence of change as deterioration.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3171\/2013.8.spine12804","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2013,9,6]],"date-time":"2013-09-06T13:54:12Z","timestamp":1378475652000},"page":"564-568","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":30,"title":["Clinically important deterioration in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a choice of evaluation methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and pain scales"],"prefix":"10.3171","volume":"19","author":[{"given":"Jeffrey L.","family":"Gum","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine;"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Steven D.","family":"Glassman","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine;"},{"name":"Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, Kentucky"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Leah Y.","family":"Carreon","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, Kentucky"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1754","reference":[{"key":"b1-spine12804","series-title":"Br J Radiol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"361","DOI":"10.1259\/0007-1285-65-773-361","article-title":"High-intensity zone: a diagnostic sign of painful lumbar disc on magnetic resonance imaging","volume":"65","author":"Aprill","year":"1992"},{"key":"b2-spine12804","series-title":"J Rheumatol","first-page":"400","article-title":"Looking for important change\/differences in studies of responsiveness","volume":"28","author":"Beaton","year":"2001"},{"key":"b3-spine12804","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"815","DOI":"10.1097\/01.brs.0000207257.64215.03","article-title":"Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: an assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients","volume":"31","author":"Campbell","year":"2006"},{"key":"b4-spine12804","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"968","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2007.11.006","article-title":"Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales","volume":"8","author":"Copay","year":"2008"},{"key":"b5-spine12804","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"291","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2009.12.027","article-title":"Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements","volume":"10","author":"Copay","year":"2010"},{"key":"b6-spine12804","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"541","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2007.01.008","article-title":"Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods","volume":"7","author":"Copay","year":"2007"},{"key":"b7-spine12804","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2940","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-200011150-00017","article-title":"The Oswestry Disability Index","volume":"25","author":"Fairbank","year":"2000"},{"key":"b8-spine12804","series-title":"Health Technol Assess","first-page":"i","article-title":"Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials","volume":"2","author":"Fitzpatrick","year":"1998"},{"key":"b9-spine12804","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"21","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2005.09.004","article-title":"MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience","volume":"6","author":"Glassman","year":"2006"},{"key":"b10-spine12804","series-title":"Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"13","DOI":"10.1016\/j.spinee.2008.08.011","article-title":"Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication","volume":"9","author":"Glassman","year":"2009"},{"key":"b11-spine12804","series-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Am","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1839","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.G.01095","article-title":"Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis","volume":"90","author":"Glassman","year":"2008"},{"key":"b12-spine12804","series-title":"J Bone Joint Surg Br","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"48","DOI":"10.1302\/0301-620X.79B1.0790048","article-title":"The short form-36 health survey questionnaire in spine surgery","volume":"79","author":"Grevitt","year":"1997"},{"key":"b13-spine12804","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"12","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-002-0464-0","article-title":"The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain","volume":"12","author":"H\u00e4gg","year":"2003"},{"key":"b14-spine12804","series-title":"Pharmacoeconomics","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"419","DOI":"10.2165\/00019053-200018050-00001","article-title":"The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?","volume":"18","author":"Hays","year":"2000"},{"key":"b15-spine12804","series-title":"J Orthop Sci","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"510","DOI":"10.1007\/s00776-011-0123-6","article-title":"Perioperative complications and adverse events after lumbar spinal surgery: evaluation of 1012 operations at a single center","volume":"16","author":"Imagama","year":"2011"},{"key":"b16-spine12804","series-title":"Control Clin Trials","first-page":"407","article-title":"Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference","volume":"10","author":"Jaeschke","year":"1989"},{"key":"b17-spine12804","series-title":"Pain","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"101","DOI":"10.1016\/S0304-3959(02)00063-5","article-title":"Postsurgical pain outcome assessment","volume":"99","author":"Jensen","year":"2002"},{"key":"b18-spine12804","series-title":"J Clin Epidemiol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"176","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jclinepi.2005.07.011","article-title":"Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire","volume":"59","author":"Kulkarni","year":"2006"},{"issue":"Suppl 3","key":"b19-spine12804","series-title":"Eur Spine J","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"374","DOI":"10.1007\/s00586-009-0931-y","article-title":"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","volume":"18","author":"Mannion","year":"2009"},{"key":"b20-spine12804","series-title":"Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires","author":"McDowell","year":"1996"},{"key":"b21-spine12804","series-title":"J Neurosurg Spine","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"150","DOI":"10.3171\/spi.2007.6.2.150","article-title":"Editorial. Modic type 1 and type 2 changes","volume":"6","author":"Modic","year":"2007"},{"key":"b22-spine12804","series-title":"Radiology","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"43","DOI":"10.1148\/radiol.2451051706","article-title":"Lumbar degenerative disk disease","volume":"245","author":"Modic","year":"2007"},{"key":"b23-spine12804","series-title":"Radiology","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"193","DOI":"10.1148\/radiology.166.1.3336678","article-title":"Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging","volume":"166","author":"Modic","year":"1988"},{"key":"b24-spine12804","series-title":"Pharmacoeconomics","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"141","DOI":"10.2165\/00019053-199915020-00003","article-title":"Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II","volume":"15","author":"Samsa","year":"1999"},{"key":"b25-spine12804","series-title":"Spine (Phila Pa 1976)","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1805","DOI":"10.1097\/00007632-199909010-00010","article-title":"Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain","volume":"24","author":"Taylor","year":"1999"},{"key":"b26-spine12804","series-title":"Med Care","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"473","DOI":"10.1097\/00005650-199206000-00002","article-title":"The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection","volume":"30","author":"Ware","year":"1992"},{"key":"b27-spine12804","series-title":"J Rheumatol","first-page":"406","article-title":"Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods","volume":"28","author":"Wells","year":"2001"},{"key":"b28-spine12804","series-title":"Med Care","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"597","DOI":"10.1097\/00005650-200305000-00006","article-title":"Interpreting health-related quality of life scores: the simple rule of seven may not be so simple","volume":"41","author":"Wright","year":"2003"},{"key":"b29-spine12804","series-title":"Med Care","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"469","DOI":"10.1097\/00005650-199905000-00006","article-title":"Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life","volume":"37","author":"Wyrwich","year":"1999"},{"key":"b30-spine12804","series-title":"J Clin Epidemiol","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"861","DOI":"10.1016\/S0895-4356(99)00071-2","article-title":"Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life","volume":"52","author":"Wyrwich","year":"1999"}],"container-title":["Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/19\/5\/article-p564.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/19\/5\/article-p564.xml","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/downloadpdf\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/19\/5\/article-p564.xml","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,4,15]],"date-time":"2023-04-15T23:10:17Z","timestamp":1681600217000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/thejns.org\/view\/journals\/j-neurosurg-spine\/19\/5\/article-p564.xml"}},"subtitle":["Clinical article"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2013,11]]},"references-count":30,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5"},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3171\/2013.8.spine12804","relation":{},"ISSN":["1547-5654"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1547-5654","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2013,11]]}}}