IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0161593.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Qualification of Outcome after Cervical Spine Surgery by Patients Compared to the Neck Disability Index

Author

Listed:
  • Roland Donk
  • Andre Verbeek
  • Wim Verhagen
  • Hans Groenewoud
  • Allard Hosman
  • Ronald Bartels

Abstract

Objective: The Neck Disability Index (NDI) is a patient self-assessed outcome measurement tool to assess disability, and that is frequently used to evaluate the effects of the treatment of neck-related problems. In individualized medicine it is mandatory that patients can interpret data in order to choose a treatment. A change of NDI or an absolute NDI is generally meaningless to a patient. Therefore, a correlation between the qualification of the clinical situation rated by the patient and the NDI score was evaluated. Methods: Patients who completed an NDI after anterior surgery because of symptomatic single level degenerative cervical disc disease were asked one month after completion of the NDI to qualify their clinical situation of a 5-item Likert scale varying from excellent to bad. Since a clear distinction between the categories was not possible based on the total NDI score, a ROC-curve was built, and the AUC computed in order to estimate best dichotomization in qualification of the clinical situation. The best corresponding cut-off point for the NDI total score was found by studying sensitivity and specificity for all possible cut-off points. Results: 102 patients were included. The highest AUC was obtained by dichotomizing the qualification into a group with good outcome and less-good outcome. The highest sensitivity and specificity for the dichotomized qualification as good outcome corresponded to a NDI ≤ 7. Sensitivity was 81.08% and specificity was 78.57%. Conclusion: This is the first study that correlated the qualification of the situation by the patients themselves and NDI. An NDI ≤ 7 corresponded to a good outcome according to the patients. This is valuable information to inform patients in their decision for any treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Roland Donk & Andre Verbeek & Wim Verhagen & Hans Groenewoud & Allard Hosman & Ronald Bartels, 2016. "The Qualification of Outcome after Cervical Spine Surgery by Patients Compared to the Neck Disability Index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-7, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0161593
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161593
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161593&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0161593?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0161593. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.