ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025
How reliable are the Core Outcome Measures Index and Global Treatment Outcome as measures of treatment success after surgery for central lumbar spinal canal stenosis?
Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe reliability of patient-reported outcome measures is typically evaluated in patients with chronic or stable symptoms, pre-treatment. After treatment, symptoms may be less extreme and less variable within a group, which may influence indices of reliability. Further, few studies have examined the reliability of retrospective, single item global assessment scores after treatment, despite the latter often being used as the external criterion when determining an instrument's minimal clinically important change (MCIC) score. This study examined the stability of Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) and Global Treatment Outcome (GTO) scores after spine surgery.
methodsData were extracted for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who had completed the COMI and GTO twice at follow-up, for both an in-house outcomes database (ROUTINE) and as part of a separate prospective study (LSOS). To be included, the questionnaires had to have been completed within 3 months of each other for 1-year follow-up (FU), within 4 months for 2-year FU and within 5 months for 5-year FU. Repeated measures ANOVA, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; 2-way mixed, absolute agreement), and weighted Kappa values were calculated.
results64 patients (72.9 ± 6.9 y; 48% female) had a COMI and GTO available from both ROUTINE and LSOS, completed on average 9.8 ± 6.2 weeks apart. There were no significant differences between test and retest scores for any of the COMI domains or for the COMI summary score (all p > 0.05), and ICCs/weighted Kappas were moderate to good (0.73-0.87). In the ROUTINE and LSOS datasets, 83% and 81% patients, respectively, reported a "good global outcome" on the GTO (i.e. treatment helped/helped a lot); the corresponding Kappa for agreement between the ratings on an individual basis was 0.74 ("good agreement").
conclusionDespite the more stringent nature of the evaluation given by this "real-life" analysis of the stability of outcome scores, the FU COMI scores showed moderate to good reliability comparable to that reported in previous studies with reliability assessed 1-2 weeks apart. The GTO was also confirmed as a reliable variable yielding stable values at mid to longer term follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40381017What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.