Advertisement

The History of Quality Assessment in Spine Care

  • Eric J. Feuchtbaum
  • Catherine H. MacLean
  • Todd J. Albert
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Spine Patient-reported outcomes Quality Value Donabedian model Cost-effective analysis Validity Reliability Health state utility value Quality-adjusted life year 

References

  1. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966. Milbank Q. 2005;83(4):691–729.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donabedian A. An introduction to quality assurance in health care, vol. 1. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 396-7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zanoli G. Outcome assessment in lumbar spine surgery. Acta Orthop. 2005;76(suppl 318):2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCormick JD, Werner BC, Shimer AL. Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21:99–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3130–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tosteson AN. Preference-based health outcome measures in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3161–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Longo UG, Loppini M, Denaro L, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Rating scales for low back pain. Br Med Bull. 2010;94:81–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG. Psychological evaluation of the spine patient. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(2):107–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271–3.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fairbank JC. Use and abuse of Oswestry disability index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(25):2787–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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. 48.
    Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3115–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fairbank JC. Why are there different versions of the Oswestry disability index? J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20:83–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1991;14(7):409–15.Google Scholar
  51. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Glowacki M, Misterska E, Laurentowska M, Mankowski P. Polish adaptation of Scoliosis Research Society-22 questionnaire. Spine. 2009;34(10):1060–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Sassi F. Calculating QALYs, comparing QALY and DALY calculations. Health Policy Plan. 2006;21(5):402–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12:S5–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    van den Hout WB. The value of productivity: human-capital versus friction-cost method. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(suppl 1):i89–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363(26):2477–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric J. Feuchtbaum
    • 1
  • Catherine H. MacLean
    • 2
  • Todd J. Albert
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Spine Center, Hospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Advancement of Value in Musculoskeletal Care, Hospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Hospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Weill Cornell Medical SchoolNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations