Dataset Information

Correlation of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System with legacy outcomes measures in assessment of response to lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System is a newly developed outcomes measure promulgated by the National Institutes of Health. This study compares changes in pain and physical function-related measures of this system with changes on the Numeric Rating Pain Scale, Roland Morris Disability Index, and the European Quality of Life scale 5D questionnaire in patients undergoing transformational epidural steroid injections for radicular pain.

Materials and methods

One hundred ninety-nine patients undergoing transforaminal epidural steroid injections for radicular pain were enrolled in the study. Before the procedure, they rated the intensity of their pain by using the 0-10 Numeric Rating Pain Scale, Roland Morris Disability Index, and European Quality of Life scale 5D questionnaire. Patients completed the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, Pain Behavior, and Pain Interference short forms before transforaminal epidural steroid injections and at 3 and 6 months. Seventy and 43 subjects replied at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Spearman rank correlations were used to assess the correlation between the instruments. The minimally important differences were calculated for each measurement tool as an indicator of meaningful change.

Results

All instruments were responsive in detecting changes at 3- and 6-month follow-up (P < .0001). There was significant correlation between changes in Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores and legacy questionnaires from baseline to 3 months (P < .05). There were, however, no significant correlations in changes from 3 to 6 months with any of the instruments.

Conclusions

The studied Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System domains offered responsive and correlative psychometric properties compared with legacy instruments in a population of patients undergoing transforaminal epidural steroid injections for radicular pain.

SUBMITTER: Shahgholi L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8013067 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms remains controversial. Epidural steroid injections are used with increasing frequency as a less invasive, potentially safer, and more cost-effective treatment than surgery. However, there is a lack of data to judge the effectiveness and safety of epidural steroid injections for spinal stenosis. We describe our prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial that tests the hypothesis that epidural injections with steroids plus local anesthetic are more effective than epidural injections of local anesthetic alone in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis.MethodsWe will recruit up to 400 patients with lumbar central canal spinal stenosis from at least 9 clinical sites over 2 years. Patients with spinal instability who require surgical fusion, a history of prior lumbar surgery, or prior epidural steroid injection within the past 6 months are excluded. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either ESI with local anesthetic or the control intervention (epidural injections with local anesthetic alone). Subjects receive up to 2 injections prior to the primary endpoint at 6 weeks, at which time they may choose to crossover to the other intervention.Participants complete validated, standardized measures of pain, functional disability, and health-related quality of life at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcomes are Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and a numerical rating scale measure of pain intensity at 6 weeks. In order to better understand their safety, we also measure cortisol, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure at baseline, and at 3 and 6 weeks post-injection. We also obtain data on resource utilization and costs to assess cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injection.DiscussionThis study is the first multi-center, double-blind RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in improving pain and function among older adults with lumbar spinal stenosis. The study will also yield data on the safety and cost-effectiveness of this procedure for older adults.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01238536.

Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are increasingly being used in patients sciatica. The STAR (steroids against radiculopathy)-trial aimed to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of TESI in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks). This article contains the economic evaluation of the STAR-trial.MethodsParticipants were randomized to one of three study arms: Usual Care (UC), that is oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy, n = 45); intervention group 1: UC and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TESI) 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone and intervention group 2: UC and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with 1 ml of 0,5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 0.9% NaCl (n = 50). The primary effect measure was health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were pain, functioning, and recovery. Costs were measured from a societal perspective, meaning that all costs were included, irrespective of who paid or benefited. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.ResultsNone of the between-group differences in effects were statistically significant for any of the outcomes (QALY, back pain, leg pain, functioning, and global perceived effect) at the 26-weeks follow-up. The adjusted mean difference in total societal costs was €1718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 3020 to 6052) for comparison 1 (intervention group 1 versus usual care), €1640 (95%CI: - 3354 to 6106) for comparison 2 (intervention group 1 versus intervention group 2), and €770 (95%CI: - 3758 to 5702) for comparison 3 (intervention group 2 versus usual care). Except for the intervention costs, none of the aggregate and disaggregate cost differences were statistically significant. The maximum probability of all interventions being cost-effective compared to the control was low (< 0.7) for all effect measures.ConclusionThese results suggest that adding TESI (or TEI) to usual care is not cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks) from a societal perspective in a Dutch healthcare setting.Trial registrationDutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014).

Project description:PurposeTo analyze time to completion of preoperative legacy patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and more recent computer adaptive Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaires in patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement syndrome undergoing primary hip arthroscopy.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing hip arthroscopy by a single fellowship-trained hip arthroscopist. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing primary arthroscopic hip surgery and completion of at least 1 legacy PRO or PROMIS questionnaire at the preoperative time point. Exclusion criteria were history of contralateral or ipsilateral hip surgery, non-English-speaking patients, patients who completed PROs by phone or by paper form, and patients who did not complete preoperative PROs. Legacy PROs included modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and Hip Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS-Pain). PROMIS PROs included Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), and Depression (PROMIS-D). Only preoperative PROs were included in the analysis. Completion time was calculated using the questionnaire start and stop time reported by the survey collecting software. The median and interquartile range of each PRO were reported for analysis of central tendency and statistical dispersion, respectively.ResultsA total of 1,901 patients and 269 patients were included in the legacy and PROMIS groups, respectively. The median time required for completion of each PRO in (minutes: seconds) format was as follows: mHHS (1:29), HOS (3:58), iHOT (2:11), VAS-Pain (0:32), PROMIS-PF (0:46), PROMIS-PI (0:37), and PROMIS-D (0:43). The interquartile range of the middle 50% of respondents was as follows; mHHS (0:58), HOS (2:46), iHOT (1:22), VAS-Pain (0:28), PROMIS-PI (0:19), PROMIS-D (0:29), and PROMIS-PF (0:20).ConclusionsThis study supports that preoperative PROMIS forms require less time to complete than preoperative legacy PROs and are not significantly influenced by age, race, or workers compensation status.Level of evidenceLevel IV, case series.