Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The History of Quality Assessment in Spine Care

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quality Spine Care

  • 768 Accesses

Abstract

Quality assessment in spine care has undergone a necessary transition over the last several decades. Initially, quality was measured by clinician-centered approaches that relied on clinician-centered metrics such as length of hospital stay, quality of fusion, need for blood transfusion, or amount of deformity correction. This narrow focus of quality assessment did not consider the perspective of the patient and therefore did not grasp the burden of spine disease from a societal perspective. Clinicians were soon able to understand the need to model quality from the perspective of the patient and society, and therefore the development of patient-related outcome (PRO) tools was commenced. Advancement in the application of PRO instruments continues. Simultaneously, given the current healthcare economic crisis, there is a greater push to create value in spine care: to provide the highest quality care in the most cost-efficient manner. The complex ideology of value and how it is modeled is a burgeoning topic in spine care. The current methods for assessing value have opportunity for improvement and may attain more sophistication and refinement in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010;303(13):1259–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966. Milbank Q. 2005;83(4):691–729.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Donabedian A. An introduction to quality assurance in health care, vol. 1. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Teles AR, Khoshhal KI, Falavigna A. Why and how should we measure outcomes in spine surgery? J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2016;11(2):91–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Weber C, Giannadakis C, Rao V, Jakola AS, et al. Is there an association between radiological severity of lumbar spinal stenosis and disability, pain, or surgical outcome: a multicenter observational study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Jan;41(2):E78–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Righesso O, Falavigna A, Avanzi O. Correlation between persistent neurological impairment and clinical outcome after microdiscectomy for treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Neurosurgery. 2012;70(2):390–6. discussion 396-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:802–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lamberg TS, Remes VM, Helenius IJ, et al. Long-term clinical, functional and radiological outcome 21 years after posterior or posterolateral fusion in childhood and adolescence isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:639–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Haefeli M, Elfering A, Aebi M, Freeman BJ, Fritzell P, Guimaraes Consciencia J, et al. What comprises a good outcome in spinal surgery? A preliminary survey among spine surgeons of the SSE and European spine patients. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(1):104–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zanoli G. Outcome assessment in lumbar spine surgery. Acta Orthop. 2005;76(suppl 318):2–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guzman JZ, Cutler HS, Connolly J, Skovrlj B, Mroz TE, Riew KD, Cho SK. Patient-reported outcome instruments in spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(5):429–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bot SD, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J, de Vet HC. Clinimetric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: a systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(4):335–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J. Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther. 1996;18(5):979–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, Lohr KN, et al. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(3):193–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McCormick JD, Werner BC, Shimer AL. Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21:99–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. 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. Spine J. 2008;8(6):968–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Parker SL, Mendenhall SK, Shau DN, Adogwa O, et al. Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(5):471–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mattei TA. “Statistically significant” does not necessarily mean ‘clinically different’ on pain/quality of life scales: opportune remarks on clinical outcomes measures in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2012;71(2):E518–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Guilfoyle MR, Seeley H, Laing RJ. The short form 36 health survey in spine disease: validation against condition specific measures. Br J Neurosurg. 2009;23(4):401–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Haro H, Maekawa S, Hamada Y. Prospective analysis of clinical evaluation and self-assessment by patients after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar canal stenosis. Spine J. 2008;8(2):380–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3130–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cruz LN, Camey SA, Hoffmann JF, Rowen D, et al. Estimating the SF-6D value set for a population-based sample of Brazilians. Value Health. 2011;14(5 Suppl 1):S108–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tosteson AN. Preference-based health outcome measures in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3161–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, Hofoss D, Nygaard OP. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J. 2005;14(10):1000–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Braun J, McHugh N, Singh A, Wajdula JS, Sato R. Improvement in patient reported outcomes for patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with etanercept 50 mg once-weekly and 25 mg twice-weekly. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46(6):999–1004.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G. How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF- 36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value Health. 2011;14(6):907–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Adobor RD, Rimeslåtten S, Keller A, Brox JI. Repeatability, reliability, and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 questionnaire and EuroQol in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(2):206–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mueller B, Carreon LY, Glassman SD. Comparison of the EuroQOL-5D with the Oswestry disability index, back and leg pain scores in patients with degenerative lumbar spine pathology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Apr 20;38(9):757–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang P, Zhang J, Liao W, Zhao L, et al. Content comparison of questionnaires and scales used in low back pain based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(14):1167–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Longo UG, Loppini M, Denaro L, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Rating scales for low back pain. Br Med Bull. 2010;94:81–144.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG. Psychological evaluation of the spine patient. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(2):107–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(1):90–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, Anderson WN, Aaronson O, Cheng JS, McGirt MJ. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(5):598–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vøllestad NK. Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(21):E492–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(11):1331–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. DeVine J, Norvell DC, Ecker E, et al. Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(21 suppl):S69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Fairbank JC. Use and abuse of Oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(25):2787–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study G. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(1):12e20.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3115–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Fairbank JC. Why are there different versions of the Oswestry disability index? J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20:83–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409–15.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, et al. Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39(5):400–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Young IA, Cleland JA, Michener LA, Brown C. Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index, patient-specific functional scale, and numeric pain rating scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;89(10):831–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, Palmer JA. The reliability and construct validity of the neck disability index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(5):598–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Yonenobu K, Abumi K, Nagata K, Taketomi E, Ueyama K. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Japanese orthopaedic association scoring system for evaluation of cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(17):1890–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981;6(4):354–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Kato S, Oshima Y, Oka H, et al. Comparison of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and modified JOA (mJOA) score for the assessment of cervical myelopathy: a multicenter observational study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0123022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Kopjar B, Tetreault L, Kalsi-Ryan S, et al. Psychometric properties of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:E23–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Oshima K, Iwasaki M, Sakaura H, et al. Comparison of the Japanese orthopaedic association score and the Japanese orthopaedic association cervical myelopathy evaluation questionnaire scores: time-dependent changes in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy and posterior longitudinal ligament. Asian Spine J. 2015;9:47–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Faraj SSA, van Hooff ML, Holewijn RM, Polly DW Jr, Haanstra TM, de Kleuver M. Measuring outcomes in adult spinal deformity surgery: a systematic review to identify current strengths, weaknesses and gaps in patient-reported outcome measures. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(8):2084–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B. The reliability and concurrent validity of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2003;28(1):63–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B. Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment: preliminary results. Spine. 2003;28(1):70–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton DC. Further development and validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcomes instrument. Spine. 2000;25(18):2381–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Asher MA, Lai SM, Burton D, Manna B. Discrimination validity of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine. 2003;28(1):74–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes C, Burton DC, Alanay A, Bago J. Refinement of the SRS-22 health-related quality of life questionnaire function domain. Spine. 2006;31(5):593–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lai SM, Asher MA, Burton D. Estimating SRS-22 quality of life measures with SF-36. Application in idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2006;31(4):473–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Monticone M, Nava C, Leggero V, Rocca B, Salvaderi S, Ferrante S, Ambrosini E. Measurement properties of translated versions of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire, SRS-22: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2015 Aug;24(8):1981–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S, et al. Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:2164–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Rosanova GC, Gabriel BS, Camarini PM, Gianini PE, Coehlo DM, Oliveira AS. Concurrent validity of the Brazilian version of SRS 22r with Br-SF-36. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2010;14(2):121–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Camarini PM, Rosanova GC, Gabriel BS, Gianini PE, Oliveira AS. The Brazilian version of the SRS-22r questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Braz J Phys Ther. 2013;17(5):494–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Zhao L, Zhang Y, Sun X, Du Q, Shang L. The Scoliosis Research Society-22 Questionnaire adapted for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients in China: reliability and validity analysis. J Child Orthop. 2007;1(6):351–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Cheung K, Senkoylu A, Alanay A, Genc Y, Lau S, Luk KD. Reliability and concurrent validity of the adapted Chinese version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine. 2007;32(10):1141–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Li M, Wang CF, Gu SX, He SS, Zhu XD, Zhao YC, Zhang JT. Adapted simplified Chinese (mainland) version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine. 2009;34(12):1321–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Qiu G, Qiu Y, Zhu Z, Liu Z, Song Y, Hai Y, et al. Re-evaluation of reliability and validity of simplified Chinese version of SRS-22 patient questionnaire: a multicenter study of 333 cases. Spine. 2011;36(8):E545–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Schlösser TP, Stadhouder A, Schimmel JJ, Lehr AM, van der Heijden GJ, Castelein RM. Reliability and validity of the adapted Dutch version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society 22-item questionnaire. Spine J. 2014 Aug 1;14(8):1663–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Beausejour M, Joncas J, Goulet L, Roy-Beaudry M, et al. Reliability and validity of adapted French Canadian version of Scoliosis Research Society outcomes questionnaire (SRS-22) in Quebec. Spine. 2009;34(6):623–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Lonjon G, Ilharreborde B, Odent T, Moreau S, Glorion C, Mazda K. Reliability and validity of the French-Canadian version of the Scoliosis Research Society 22 questionnaire in France. Spine. 2014;39(1):E26–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Niemeyer T, Schubert C, Halm HF, Herberts T, Leichtle C, Gesicki M. Validity and reliability of an adapted German version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine. 2009;34(8):818–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Antonarakos PD, Katrinitsa L, Angelis L, Paganas A, Koen EM, Christodoulou EA, Christodoulou AG. Reliability and validity of the adapted Greek version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Scoliosis. 2009;4:14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Potoupnis M, Papavasiliou K, Kenanidis E, Pellios S, Kapetanou A, Sayegh F, Kapetanos G. Reliability and concurrent validity of the adapted Greek version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire. A cross-sectional study performed on conservatively treated patients. Hippokratia. 2012;16(3):225–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Monticone M, Baiardi P, Calabrò D, Calabrò F, Foti C. Development of the Italian version of the revised Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire, SRS-22r-I: cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Spine. 2010;35(24):E1412–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Hashimoto H, Sase T, Arai Y, Maruyama T, Isobe K, Shouno Y. Validation of a Japanese version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire among idiopathic scoliosis patients in Japan. Spine. 2007;32(4):E141–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Lee JS, Lee DH, Suh KT, Kim JI, Lim JM, Goh TS. Validation of the Korean version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(10):1751–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Mousavi SJ, Mobini B, Mehdian H, Akbarnia B, et al. Reliability and validity of the Persian version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire. Spine. 2010;35(7):784–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Glowacki M, Misterska E, Laurentowska M, Mankowski P. Polish adaptation of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine. 2009;34(10):1060–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Bago J, Climent JM, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E. The Spanish version of the SRS-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis: transcultural adaptation and reliability analysis. Spine. 2004;29(15):1676–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Climent JM, Bago J, Ey A, Perez-Grueso FJ, Izquierdo E. Validity of the Spanish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 patient questionnaire. Spine. 2005;30(6):705–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Danielsson AJ, Romberg K. Reliability and validity of the Swedish version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22r) patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2013;38(21):1875–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Leelapattana P, Keorochana G, Johnson J, Wajanavisit W, Laohacharoensombat W. Reliability and validity of an adapted Thai version of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. J Child Orthop. 2011;5(1):35–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Sathira-Angkura V, Pithankuakul K, Sakulpipatana S, Piyaskulkaew C, Kunakornsawat S. Validity and reliability of an adapted Thai version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2012;37(9):783–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Alanay A, Cil A, Berk H, Acaroglu RE, et al. Reliability and validity of adapted Turkish version of Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire. Spine. 2005;30(21):2464–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA. 2008;299(6):656–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Holahan J, Blumberg LJ, McMorrow S, Zuckerman S, Waidmann T, Stockley K. Health Policy Center Occasional Paper. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 2011. Containing the growth of spending in the U.S. Health System.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Resnick DK, Tosteson AN, Groman RF, Ghogawala Z. Setting the equation: establishing value in spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 Suppl 1):S43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Rihn JA, Bradford CL, Phillips FM, Glassman SD, Albert TJ. Defining the value of spine care. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21:419–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Nwachukwu BU, Schairer WW, Shifflett GD, Kellner DB, Sama AA. Cost-utility analyses in spine care: a qualitative and systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(1):31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Tosteson AN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(12):845–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Abdu WA, Lurie JD, Spratt KF, et al. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: does fusion method influence outcome? Four year results of the spine patient outcomes research trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(21):2351–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Tosteson AN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Comparative effectiveness evidence from the spine patient outcomes research trial: surgical versus nonoperative care for spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and intervertebral disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(24):2061–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(9):i–iv,1–164.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Qureshi S, Goz V, McAnany S, Cho SK, Hecht AC, Delamarter RB, Fehlings MG. Health state utility of patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease: comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cervical disc arthroplasty. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(5):475–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Bosch JL, van der Graaf Y, Hunink MG. Health-related quality of life after angioplasty and stent placement in patients with iliac artery occlusive disease: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Circulation. 1999;99:3155–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Bullens PH, van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, Laan RF, Veth RP. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplast. 2001;16:740–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Haentjens P, De Groote K, Annemans L. Prolonged enoxaparin therapy to prevent venous thromboembolism after primary hip or knee replacement. A cost-utility analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;124:507–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Carreon LY, Anderson PA, Glassman SD. Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the neck disability and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(6):490–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Sassi F. Calculating QALYs, comparing QALY and DALY calculations. Health Policy Plan. 2006;21(5):402–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12:S5–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Cost-to-charge ratio files. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/state/costtocharge.jsp. Accessed 9 May 2013.

  108. Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8(1):8–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. van den Hout WB. The value of productivity: human-capital versus friction-cost method. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(suppl 1):i89–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, Fendrick AM, Weissert WG. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Mak. 2000;20(3):332–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King JT Jr, et al. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care. 2008;46:349–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Angevine PD, Zivin JG, McCormick PC. Cost-effectiveness of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical spondylosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(17):1989–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spine Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Eric J. Feuchtbaum

  2. Center for the Advancement of Value in Musculoskeletal Care, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Catherine H. MacLean

  3. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Todd J. Albert

  4. Weill Cornell Medical School, New York, NY, USA

    Todd J. Albert

Authors
  1. Eric J. Feuchtbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine H. MacLean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Todd J. Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    John Ratliff

  2. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Todd J. Albert

  3. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Joseph Cheng

  4. Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, Morristown, NJ, USA

    Jack Knightly

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Feuchtbaum, E.J., MacLean, C.H., Albert, T.J. (2019). The History of Quality Assessment in Spine Care. In: Ratliff, J., Albert, T., Cheng, J., Knightly, J. (eds) Quality Spine Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97989-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97990-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation