Limits...
Comparing Utility Scores in Common Spinal Radiculopathies: Results of a Prospective Valuation Study.

Nayak NR, Stephen JH, Abdullah KG, Stein SC, Malhotra NR - Global Spine J (2015)

Bottom Line: Age and sex had no significant effect on utility scores.EQ-5D utilities for both cervical and lumbar radiculopathy were considerably lower than the results of our study.Conclusions Utility values associated with the most common levels of cervical and lumbar radiculopathy do not significantly differ from each other, validating the current practice of grouping utility by spinal segment rather than by specific root levels.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neurosurgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.

ABSTRACT
Study Design Prospective observational study. Objective To determine whether preference-based health utility scores for common spinal radiculopathies vary by specific spinal level. Methods We employed a standard gamble study using the general public to calculate individual preference-based quality of life for four common radiculopathies: C6, C7, L5, and S1. We compared utility scores obtained for each level of radiculopathy with analysis of variance and t test. Multivariable regression was used to test the effects of the covariates age, sex, and years of education. We also reviewed the literature for publications reporting EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores for patients with radiculopathy. Results Two hundred participants were included in the study. Average utility for the four spinal levels fell within a narrow range (0.748 to 0.796). There were no statistically significant differences between lumbar and cervical radiculopathies, nor were there significant differences among the different spinal levels (F = 0.0850, p = 0.086). Age and sex had no significant effect on utility scores. There was a significant correlation between years of education and utility values for S1 radiculopathy (p = 0.037). On review of the literature, no study separated utility values by specific spinal level. EQ-5D utilities for both cervical and lumbar radiculopathy were considerably lower than the results of our study. Conclusions Utility values associated with the most common levels of cervical and lumbar radiculopathy do not significantly differ from each other, validating the current practice of grouping utility by spinal segment rather than by specific root levels. The discrepancy in average utility values between our study and the EQ-5D highlights the need to be mindful of the underlying instruments used when assessing outcomes studies from different sources.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Linear regression of quality of life with S1 radiculopathy, plotted against years of education of interviewee. The line represents the fitted mean values, the gray area the 95% confidence intervals.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4836936&req=5

FI1500073-1: Linear regression of quality of life with S1 radiculopathy, plotted against years of education of interviewee. The line represents the fitted mean values, the gray area the 95% confidence intervals.

Mentions: Two hundred community members were interviewed and included in the study; the demographics are summarized in Table 1. The average participant was 36.7 years with 16.2 years of education. The results of the SG for the four levels of radiculopathy are summarized in Table 2. The average utility values for the four spinal levels fell within a narrow range (0.748 to 0.796), with L5 radiculopathy resulting in the lowest utility and C7 radiculopathy resulting in the highest utility. There were no statistically significant differences in utility between lumbar and cervical radiculopathies, nor were there significant differences among the different spinal levels (F = 0.0850, p = 0.086). Correlations between the demographic factors and utility for each radiculopathy are summarized in Table 3. Sex and age had no significant effect on utility scores. There was a significant correlation between years of educations and the utility values for S1 radiculopathy (p = 0.037), as illustrated in Fig. 1.


Comparing Utility Scores in Common Spinal Radiculopathies: Results of a Prospective Valuation Study.

Nayak NR, Stephen JH, Abdullah KG, Stein SC, Malhotra NR - Global Spine J (2015)

Linear regression of quality of life with S1 radiculopathy, plotted against years of education of interviewee. The line represents the fitted mean values, the gray area the 95% confidence intervals.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4836936&req=5

FI1500073-1: Linear regression of quality of life with S1 radiculopathy, plotted against years of education of interviewee. The line represents the fitted mean values, the gray area the 95% confidence intervals.
Mentions: Two hundred community members were interviewed and included in the study; the demographics are summarized in Table 1. The average participant was 36.7 years with 16.2 years of education. The results of the SG for the four levels of radiculopathy are summarized in Table 2. The average utility values for the four spinal levels fell within a narrow range (0.748 to 0.796), with L5 radiculopathy resulting in the lowest utility and C7 radiculopathy resulting in the highest utility. There were no statistically significant differences in utility between lumbar and cervical radiculopathies, nor were there significant differences among the different spinal levels (F = 0.0850, p = 0.086). Correlations between the demographic factors and utility for each radiculopathy are summarized in Table 3. Sex and age had no significant effect on utility scores. There was a significant correlation between years of educations and the utility values for S1 radiculopathy (p = 0.037), as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Bottom Line: Age and sex had no significant effect on utility scores.EQ-5D utilities for both cervical and lumbar radiculopathy were considerably lower than the results of our study.Conclusions Utility values associated with the most common levels of cervical and lumbar radiculopathy do not significantly differ from each other, validating the current practice of grouping utility by spinal segment rather than by specific root levels.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neurosurgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.

ABSTRACT
Study Design Prospective observational study. Objective To determine whether preference-based health utility scores for common spinal radiculopathies vary by specific spinal level. Methods We employed a standard gamble study using the general public to calculate individual preference-based quality of life for four common radiculopathies: C6, C7, L5, and S1. We compared utility scores obtained for each level of radiculopathy with analysis of variance and t test. Multivariable regression was used to test the effects of the covariates age, sex, and years of education. We also reviewed the literature for publications reporting EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores for patients with radiculopathy. Results Two hundred participants were included in the study. Average utility for the four spinal levels fell within a narrow range (0.748 to 0.796). There were no statistically significant differences between lumbar and cervical radiculopathies, nor were there significant differences among the different spinal levels (F = 0.0850, p = 0.086). Age and sex had no significant effect on utility scores. There was a significant correlation between years of education and utility values for S1 radiculopathy (p = 0.037). On review of the literature, no study separated utility values by specific spinal level. EQ-5D utilities for both cervical and lumbar radiculopathy were considerably lower than the results of our study. Conclusions Utility values associated with the most common levels of cervical and lumbar radiculopathy do not significantly differ from each other, validating the current practice of grouping utility by spinal segment rather than by specific root levels. The discrepancy in average utility values between our study and the EQ-5D highlights the need to be mindful of the underlying instruments used when assessing outcomes studies from different sources.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus