Minimum Clinically Important Difference in SF-36 Scores for Use in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy
- PMID: 29652783
- DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002684
Minimum Clinically Important Difference in SF-36 Scores for Use in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy
Abstract
Study design: Post-hoc analysis of 606 patients enrolled in the AOSpine CSM-NA or CSM-I prospective, multicenter cohort studies.
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM).
Summary of background data: There has been a shift toward focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in spine surgery. However, the numerical scores of PROs lack immediate clinical meaning. The MCID adds a dimension of interpretability to PRO scales; by defining the smallest change, a patient would consider meaningful.
Methods: The MCID of the SF-36v2 PCS and MCS were determined by distribution- and anchor-based methods comparing preoperative to 12-month scores. Distribution-based approaches included calculation of the half standard deviation and standard error of measurement (SEM). Change in Neck Disability Index (NDI) served as the anchor: "worse" (ΔNDI>7.5); "unchanged" (7.5≥ΔNDI>-7.5); "slightly improved" (-7.5≥ΔNDI>-15); and "markedly improved" (ΔNDI ≤-15). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the change score for the MCID with even sensitivity and specificity to distinguish patients who were "slightly improved" versus "unchanged" on the NDI.
Results: The MCID for the SF-36v2 PCS and MCS were 4.6 and 6.8 by half standard deviation and 2.9 and 4.3 by SEM, respectively. By ROC analysis, the MCID was 3.9 for the SF-36v2 PCS score and 3.2 for the SF-36v2 MCS score. Using a cutoff of 4 points, the SF-36v2 PCS had a sensitivity of 72.2% and specificity of 68.1%, and MCS 61.9% and 64.6%, respectively, in separating patients who were "markedly improved" or "slightly improved" from those who were "unchanged" or "worse."
Conclusion: We found the MCID of the SF-36v2 PCS and MCS to be 4 points. This will facilitate use of the SF-36v2 as an outcome in future studies of DCM.
Level of evidence: 3.
Similar articles
-
Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article.J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Feb;18(2):154-60. doi: 10.3171/2012.10.SPINE12312. Epub 2012 Nov 23. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013. PMID: 23176164
-
Patient phenotypes associated with outcome following surgery for mild degenerative cervical myelopathy: a principal component regression analysis.Spine J. 2018 Dec;18(12):2220-2231. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.009. Epub 2018 May 7. Spine J. 2018. PMID: 29746963
-
What Are the Minimum Clinically Important Differences in SF-36 Scores in Patients with Orthopaedic Oncologic Conditions?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Sep;478(9):2148-2158. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001341. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020. PMID: 32568896 Free PMC article.
-
The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance.Am J Sports Med. 2023 Feb;51(2):520-524. doi: 10.1177/03635465211053869. Epub 2021 Dec 2. Am J Sports Med. 2023. PMID: 34854345 Review.
-
Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.Spine J. 2007 Sep-Oct;7(5):541-6. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008. Epub 2007 Apr 2. Spine J. 2007. PMID: 17448732 Review.
Cited by
-
Differences in quality-of-life scores across injury categories by mental health status among injured U.S. military service members and veterans.Qual Life Res. 2023 Feb;32(2):461-472. doi: 10.1007/s11136-022-03263-3. Epub 2022 Oct 27. Qual Life Res. 2023. PMID: 36301403
-
Minimum clinically important difference in outcome scores among patients undergoing cervical laminoplasty.Eur Spine J. 2019 May;28(5):1234-1241. doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-05945-y. Epub 2019 Mar 14. Eur Spine J. 2019. PMID: 30877386
-
Recovery Trajectories of Patient-reported Outcomes After Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Bayesian Latent Class Modeling Approach.Clin Spine Surg. 2025 Mar 1;38(2):E69-E74. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001662. Epub 2024 Jul 22. Clin Spine Surg. 2025. PMID: 39037072
-
Improvements in Mental Well-Being and its Predictive Factors in Patients who Underwent Cervical versus Lumbar Decompression Surgery.Spine Surg Relat Res. 2021 Jun 11;6(1):10-16. doi: 10.22603/ssrr.2021-0060. eCollection 2022. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2021. PMID: 35224241 Free PMC article.
-
The Positive Side Effect of Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion on Axial Neck Pain.Global Spine J. 2025 Apr;15(3):1608-1613. doi: 10.1177/21925682241254036. Epub 2024 May 10. Global Spine J. 2025. PMID: 38729921 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972; 95:87–100.
-
- Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, et al. 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; 95:1651–1658.
-
- Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, et al. A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015; 40:1322–1328.
-
- Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, et al. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord 1991; 4:286–295.
-
- Nurick S. The natural history and the results of surgical treatment of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972; 95:101–108.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous