Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical Assessment Tools

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Radiculopathy

  • 1375 Accesses

Abstract

The prevalence of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) in the population results in an outsized impact on global health. DCM is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in the world. It is associated with a significant decline in patient-reported quality of life. Evaluation of patients with DCM is complex, frequently involving a combination of physical examination, electrophysiological testing, and advanced imaging. An increasingly important component of the outcome of treatment involves the use of clinical assessment tools, sometimes referred to as “patient-reported outcomes.” A vast array of clinical assessment tools exist – a recent review identified over 50 unique instruments. In this chapter, we will discuss these tools, both their basic overarching characteristics, and some of the details of more commonly used assessments.

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 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, Yoon ST, Arnold PM, Massicotte EM, Vaccaro AR, Brodke DS, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, Woodard EJ, Banco RJ, Chapman JR, Janssen ME, Bono CM, Sasso RC, Dekutoski MB, Gokaslan ZL. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America prospective multi-center study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(18):1651–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of cervical spine surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J. 2015;15(6):1203–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ghogawala Z, Benzel EC, Heary RF, Riew KD, Albert TJ, Butler WE, Barker FG 2nd, Heller JG, McCormick PC, Whitmore RG, Freund KM, Schwartz JS. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy surgical trial: randomized, controlled trial design and rationale. Neurosurgery. 2014;75(4):334–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nayak NR, Coats JM, Abdullah KG, Stein SC, Malhotra NR. Tracking patient-reported outcomes in spinal disorders. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6(Suppl 19):S490–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Whitmore RG, Schwartz JS, Simmons S, Stein SC, Ghogawala Z. Performing a cost analysis in spine outcomes research: comparing ventral and dorsal approaches for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2012;70(4):860–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ueda H, Cutler HS, Guzman JZ, Cho SK. Current trends in the use of patient-reported outcome instruments in degenerative cervical spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2016;6(3):242–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Whitmore RG, Ghogawala Z, Petrov D, Schwartz JS, Stein SC. Function outcome instruments used for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: interscale correlation and prediction of preference-based quality of life. Spine J. 2013;13(8):902–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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;7:541–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Auffinger B, Lam S, Shen J, Thaci B, Roitberg BZ. Usefulness of minimum clinically important difference for assessing patients with subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease: statistical versus substantial clinical benefit. Acta Neurochir. 2013;155(12):2345–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cleland JA, Childs JD, Whitman JM. Psychometric properties of the neck disability index and numeric pain rating scale in patients with mechanical neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(1):69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hahn EA, Bode RK, Du H, Cella D. Evaluating linguistic equivalence of patient-reported outcomes in a cancer clinical trial. Clin Trials. 2006;3(3):280–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Watanabe K, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Hasegawa K, Hirano T, Endo N, Cheh G, Kim YJ, Hensley M, Stobbs G, Koester L. Cross-cultural comparison of the Scoliosis Research Society Outcomes Instrument between American and Japanese idiopathic scoliosis patients: are there differences? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(24):2711–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Diehr P, Chen L, Patrick D, Feng Z, Yasui Y. Reliability, effect size, and responsiveness of health status measures in the design of randomized and cluster-randomized trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26(1):45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mark TL, Johnson G, Fortner B, Ryan K. The benefits and challenges of using computer-assisted symptom assessments in oncology clinics: results of a qualitative assessment. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2008;7(5):401–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Choudhri TF, Eck JC, Sharan A, Groff MW, Wang JC, Dhall SS, Kaiser MG. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(1):7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Karanicolas PJ, Bhandari M, Kreder H, Moroni A, Richardson M, Walter SD, Norman GR, Guyatt GH, Collaboration for Outcome Assessment in Surgical Trials (COAST) Musculoskeletal Group. Evaluating agreement: conducting a reliability study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 3):99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ravindra VM, Guan J, Holland CM, Dailey AT, Schmidt MH, Godzik J, Hood RS, Ray WZ, Bisson EF. Vitamin D status in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparison of fusion rates and patient outcome measures: a preliminary experience. J Neurosurg Sci. 2016.; Epub ahead of print.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Devlin NJ, Parkin D, Browne J. Patient-reported outcome measures in the NHS: new methods for analyzing and reporting EQ-5D data. Health Econ. 2010;19(8):886–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18:154–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Xiao R, Miller JA, Lubelski D, Alberts JL, Mroz TE, Benzel EC, Krishaney AA, Machado AG. Quality of life outcomes following cervical decompression for coexisting Parkinson’s disease and cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2016;16(11):1358–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ware JE, Kosinski M. Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: a response. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(5):405–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Baron R, Elashaal A, Germon T, Hobart J. Measuring outcomes in cervical spine surgery: think twice before using the SF-36. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(22):2575–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Auffinger BM, Lall RR, Dahdaleh NS, Wong AP, Lam SK, Koski T, Fessler RG, Smith ZA. Measuring surgical outcomes in cervical spondylotic myelopathy patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: assessment of minimum clinically important difference. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e67408.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord. 1991;4(3):286–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kopjar B, Tetreault L, Kalsi-Ryan S, Fehlings M. Psychometric properties of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;49(1):E23–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tetreault L, Nouri A, Kopjar B, Côté P, Fehlings MG. The minimum clinically important difference of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic association scale in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(21):1653–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, Blanchard A, Etruw E, McAlpine C, Goldsmith CH. Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39(5):400–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain. 1972;95:87–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Holly LT, Matz PG, Anderson PA, Groff MW, Heary RF, Kaiser MG, Mummaneni PV, Ryken TC, Choudhri TF, Vresilovic EJ, Resnick DK, Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Functional outcomes assessment for cervical degenerative disease. J Neuosurg Spine. 2009;11(2):238–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Jian Guan

  2. Alan L. and Jacqueline Stuart Spine Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA

    Jian Guan

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA

    Zoher Ghogawala

  4. Department of Neurosurgery, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Zoher Ghogawala

Authors
  1. Jian Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zoher Ghogawala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoher Ghogawala .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Michael G. Kaiser

  2. Atlanta Brain and Spine Care, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Regis W. Haid

  3. Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA

    Christopher I. Shaffrey

  4. Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Michael G. Fehlings

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

Guan, J., Ghogawala, Z. (2019). Clinical Assessment Tools. In: Kaiser, M., Haid, R., Shaffrey, C., Fehlings, M. (eds) Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy and Radiculopathy . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97952-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97952-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97951-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97952-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation