Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Adult Lumbar Scoliosis pp 31–47Cite as

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Available for Adult Lumbar Scoliosis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Please confirm the identified heading levels are okay.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Fairbank JC. Use and abuse of Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(25):2787–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jenkinson C, Layte R. Development and testing of the UK SF-12 (short form health survey). J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2(1):14–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D, et al. A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? J Public Health Med. 1997;19(2):179–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD, The MOS. 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Andresen EM, Fouts BS, Romeis JC, Brownson CA. Performance of health-related quality-of-life instruments in a spinal cord injured population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(8):877–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Meyers AR, Andresen EM. Enabling our instruments: accommodation, universal design, and access to participation in research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81(12 Suppl 2):S5–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmaco Econ. 2000;17(1):13–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. Grevitt M, Khazim R, Webb J, Mulholland R, Shepperd J. The short form-36 health survey questionnaire in spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(1):48–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

  12. Brodke DS, Lawrence BD, Spiker WR, Neese AM, Hung M. PROMIS PF CAT outperforms the ODI and SF-36 physical function domain in 1607 spine patients. Eighth Annual Meeting of the Lumbar Spine Research Society. 9–10 Apr 2015, 2015; Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ware Jr J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 2005;14(11):1169–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Selim AJ, Rogers W, Qian SX, Brazier J, Kazis LE. A preference-based measure of health: the VR-6D derived from the veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(8):1337–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf). 2005;27(3):281–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jansson KA, Nemeth G, Granath F, Jonsson B, Blomqvist P. Health-related quality of life in patients before and after surgery for a herniated lumbar disc. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(7):959–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stromqvist B. Evidence-based lumbar spine surgery. The role of national registration. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 2002;73(305):34–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stromqvist B, Jonsson B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Larsson BE, Lind B. The Swedish National Register for lumbar spine surgery: Swedish Society for Spinal Surgery. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72(2):99–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McCormick JD, Werner BC, Shimer AL. Patient-reported outcome measures in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(2):99–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Brooks R, Rabin R, de Charro F. The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Evidence from the EuroQol BIOMED Research Programme. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Burstrom B, Fredlund P. Self rated health: is it as good a predictor of subsequent mortality among adults in lower as well as in higher social classes? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55(11):836–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

  28. Adobor RD, Rimeslatten 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 

  29. Angevine PD, Berven S. Health economic studies: an introduction to cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 Suppl 1):S9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD, et al. The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(19):2108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981;19(8):787–805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gilson BS, Gilson JS, Bergner M, et al. The sickness impact profile. Development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health. 1975;65(12):1304–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Lurie J. A review of generic health status measures in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3125–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Deyo RA, Diehl AK. Measuring physical and psychosocial function in patients with low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8(6):635–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Nanda U, McLendon PM, Andresen EM, Armbrecht E. The SIP68: an abbreviated sickness impact profile for disability outcomes research. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(5):583–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Post MW, Gerritsen J, Diederikst JP, DeWittet LP. Measuring health status of people who are wheelchair-dependent: validity of the sickness impact profile 68 and the Nottingham Health Profile. Disabil Rehabil. 2001;23(6):245–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain. 1975;1(3):277–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Melzack R. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain. 1987;30(2):191–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Revicki DA, et al. Development and initial validation of an expanded and revised version of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2). Pain. 2009;144(1–2):35–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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 

  41. Parker SL, Adogwa O, Paul AR, et al. 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 

  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. 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 

  44. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940–52; discussion 2952.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fairbank JC. Why are there different versions of the Oswestry Disability Index? J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(1):83–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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 

  47. Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82(1):8–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, et al. The Quebec back pain disability scale. Measurement properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(3):341–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Katz JN. Measures of adult back and neck function. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49(5S):S43–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Brodke DS, Annis P, Lawrence BD, Spiker WR, Neese A, Hung, M. Oswestry Disability Index: a psychometric analysis with 1610 patients. 29th Annual Meeting of the North American Spine Society. 2014; San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983;8(2):141–4.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Gilson BS, Morris JR. The sickness impact profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Serv. 1976;6(3):393–415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Measurement properties of the RM-18. A modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(20):2416–21.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jordan K, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Croft P. A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(1):45–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH. The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(6):741–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. O’Neill SC, Nagle M, Baker JF, Rowan FE, Tierney S, Quinlan JF. An assessment of the readability and quality of elective orthopaedic information on the Internet. Acta Orthop Belg. 2014;80(2):153–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Hart RA, Gundle KR, Pro SL, Marshall LM. Lumbar Stiffness Disability Index: pilot testing of consistency, reliability, and validity. Spine J. 2013;13(2):157–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hart RA, Marshall LM, Hiratzka SL, Kane MS, Volpi J, Hiratzka JR. Functional limitations due to stiffness as a collateral impact of instrumented arthrodesis of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(24):E1468–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Haher TR, Gorup JM, Shin TM, et al. Results of the Scoliosis Research Society instrument for evaluation of surgical outcome in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A multicenter study of 244 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(14):1435–40.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Asher MA, Min Lai S, Burton DC. Further development and validation of the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) outcomes instrument. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(18):2381–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, Manna B. Scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: responsiveness to change associated with surgical treatment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(1):70–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, Manna B. The reliability and concurrent validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire for idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(1):63–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Asher M, Min Lai S, Burton D, Manna B. Discrimination validity of the scoliosis research society-22 patient questionnaire: relationship to idiopathic scoliosis curve pattern and curve size. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(1):74–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Asher MA, Lai SM, Glattes RC, Burton DC, Alanay A, Bago J. Refinement of the SRS-22 health-related quality of life questionnaire function domain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(5):593–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Berven S, Deviren V, Demir-Deviren S, Hu SS, Bradford DS. Studies in the modified Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument in adults: validation, reliability, and discriminatory capacity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(18):2164–9; discussion 2169.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Bridwell KH, Cats-Baril W, Harrast J, et al. The validity of the SRS-22 instrument in an adult spinal deformity population compared with the Oswestry and SF-12: a study of response distribution, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and reliability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(4):455–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Bridwell KH, Berven S, Glassman S, et al. Is the SRS-22 instrument responsive to change in adult scoliosis patients having primary spinal deformity surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(20):2220–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(1):E26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Schlosser 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;14(8):1663–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81(2):776–88.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Stucki G, Daltroy L, Liang MH, Lipson SJ, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Measurement properties of a self-administered outcome measure in lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(7):796–803.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Hidalgo Ovejero AM, Menendez Garcia M, Bermejo Fraile B, Garcia Mata S, Forcen Alonso T, Mateo SP. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Validation study of the Spanish version. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2015;38(1):41–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Yi H, Wei X, Zhang W, et al. Reliability and validity of simplified Chinese version of Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire for patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(10):820–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Moojen WA, Arts MP, Jacobs WC, et al. IPD without bony decompression versus conventional surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2015;24:2295–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Waddell G, Main CJ. Assessment of severity in low-back disorders. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984;9(2):204–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Million R, Hall W, Nilsen KH, Baker R, Jayson M. Assessment of the progress of the back-pain patient. Spine. 1982;7(3):204–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Greenough CG, Fraser RD. Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992;17(1):36–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Spearman C. “General Intelligence” objectively determined and measured. Am J Psychol. 1904;15(2):201–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Petrillo J, Cano SJ, McLeod LD, Coon CD. Using classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch measurement theory to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures: a comparison of worked examples. Value Health. 2015;18(1):25–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Lord FM. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. New York, London; Routledge; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  81. De Champlain AF. A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessments in medical education. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):109–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Hambleton RK, Jones RW. An NCME instructional module on comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Edu Meas Issues Pract. 1993;12(3):38–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Tyser AR, Beckmann J, Franklin JD, et al. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg. 2014;39(10):2047–51. e2044.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Hung M, Stuart AR, Higgins TF, Saltzman CL, Kubiak EN. Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(8):439–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Broderick JE, DeWitt EM, Rothrock N, Crane PK, Forrest CB. Advances in patient-reported outcomes: the NIH PROMIS((R)) measures. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2013;1(1):1015.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Kirwan JR, Hewlett SE, Heiberg T, et al. Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis--progress at OMERACT 7. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(11):2250–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Magasi S, Ryan G, Revicki D, et al. Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(5):739–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Fries J, Bruce B, Cella D. The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5):S53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone AA. Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Conway PH, Clancy C. Comparative-effectiveness research—implications of the Federal Coordinating Council’s report. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(4):328–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Döring A-C, Nota SP, Hageman MG, Ring DC. Measurement of upper extremity disability using the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system. J Hand Surg. 2014;39(6):1160–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Overbeek CL, Nota SP, Jayakumar P, Hageman MG, Ring D. The PROMIS physical function correlates with the QuickDASH in patients with upper extremity illness. Clin Orthop Related Res®. 2015;473(1):311–7.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Morgan JH, Kallen MA, Okike K, Lee OC, Vrahas MS. PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test compared with other upper extremity outcome measures in the evaluation of proximal humerus fractures in patients older than 60 years. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(6):257–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Hung M, Baumhauer JF, Brodsky JW, et al. Psychometric comparison of the PROMIS physical function CAT with the FAAM and FFI for measuring patient-reported outcomes. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(6):592–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Hung M, Nickisch F, Beals TC, Greene T, Clegg DO, Saltzman CL. New paradigm for patient-reported outcomes assessment in foot & ankle research: computerized adaptive testing. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33(8):621–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Hung M, Hon SD, Franklin JD, et al. Psychometric properties of the PROMIS physical function item bank in patients with spinal disorders. Spine. 2014;39(2):158–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Brodke DS, Annis P, Lawrence BD, Spiker WR, Neese A, Hung M. Oswestry Disability Index: a psychometric analysis with 1610 patients. Spine J. 2014;11(14):S49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Hung M, Cheng C, Hon SD, et al. Challenging the norm: further psychometric investigation of the neck disability index. The Spine Journal. 2015;15(11): 2440–2445.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Brodke DS, Lawrence BD, Ryan Spiker W, Neese A, Hung M. Converting ODI or SF-36 Physical Function Domain Scores to a PROMIS PF Score. Spine J. 2014;14(11):S50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Vadim Goz MD

  2. Deparment of Spine and Spinal Deformity Surgery, NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY, USA

    Joseph F. Baker FRCS

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Darrel S. Brodke MD

Authors
  1. Vadim Goz MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph F. Baker FRCS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Darrel S. Brodke MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darrel S. Brodke MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California - Davis, Sacramento, California, USA

    Eric O. Klineberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Goz, V., Baker, J.F., Brodke, D.S. (2017). Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Available for Adult Lumbar Scoliosis. In: Klineberg, E. (eds) Adult Lumbar Scoliosis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47709-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47709-1_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47707-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47709-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation