External Validation of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in the Timed-up-and-go Test After Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text This study confirms the originally reported Timed-up-and-go (TUG) test's minimum clinically important difference value for postoperative improvement in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disc disease. A change in TUG test time of 2.1 seconds (or a change in TUG z score of 1.5) indicates a clinically meaningful improvement in objective functional status. Study Design. Prospective observational cohort study. Objective. The aim of this study was to provide external validation of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the Timed-up-and-go (TUG) test. Summary of Background Data. The TUG test is one of the best explored and most frequently applied objective task-based functional outcome measure in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). The increased use of the TUG test is based on its solid psychometric properties; however, an external validation of the originally determined MCID is lacking. Methods. Forty-nine patients with lumbar DDD, scheduled for elective spine surgery, were assessed pre- and 6-weeks (W6) postoperative. MCID values were calculate for raw TUG test times (seconds) and standardized TUG z scores using three different computation methods and the following established patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as anchors: Visual Analog Scales (VAS), Core Outcome Measures Index Back, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ). Results. The three computation methods generated a range of MCID values, depending on the PROM used as anchor, from 0.9 s (z score of 0.3) based on the VAS leg pain to 3.0 seconds (z score of 2.7) based on the ZCQ physical function scale. The average MCID of the TUG test across all anchors and computation methods was 2.1 s (z score of 1.5). According to the average MCID of raw TUG test values or TUG z scores, 41% and 43% of patients classified as W6 responders to surgery, respectively. Conclusion. This study confirms the ordinally reported TUG MCID values in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar. A TUG test time change of 2.1 seconds (or TUG z score change of 1.5) indicates an objective and clinically meaningful change in functional status. This report facilitates the interpretation of TUG test results in clinical routine as well as in research. Level of Evidence: 3

[1]  M. Stienen,et al.  External Validation of the Timed Up and Go Test as Measure of Objective Functional Impairment in Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease. , 2020, Neurosurgery.

[2]  M. Stienen,et al.  Subjective and Objective Measures of Symptoms, Function, and Outcome in Patients With Degenerative Spine Disease , 2020, Arthritis care & research.

[3]  L. Regli,et al.  Evaluation of the 6-minute walking test as a smartphone app-based self-measurement of objective functional impairment in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease. , 2020, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[4]  M. Stienen,et al.  Longitudinal smartphone-based self-assessment of objective functional impairment in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disc disease: initial experience , 2020, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[5]  Allen L. Ho,et al.  Objective activity tracking in spine surgery: a prospective feasibility study with a low-cost consumer grade wearable accelerometer , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[6]  M. Stienen,et al.  Digital transformation in spine research and outcome assessment. , 2020, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[7]  K. Schaller,et al.  Lower Extremity Motor Deficits Are Underappreciated in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Added Value of Objective Outcome Measures , 2020, Neurospine.

[8]  L. Regli,et al.  Improving the Patient-Physician Relationship in the Digital Era - Transformation From Subjective Questionnaires Into Objective Real-Time and Patient-Specific Data Reporting Tools , 2019, Neurospine.

[9]  Allen L. Ho,et al.  Objective measures of functional impairment for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine: a systematic review of the literature. , 2019, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[10]  M. Smuck,et al.  Digital biomarkers of spine and musculoskeletal disease from accelerometers: Defining phenotypes of free-living physical activity in knee osteoarthritis and lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2019, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[11]  D. Togawa,et al.  Effect of corrective long spinal fusion to the ilium on physical function in patients with adult spinal deformity , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[12]  K. Schaller,et al.  Influence of Body Mass Index on Subjective and Objective Measures of Pain, Functional Impairment, and Health-Related Quality of Life in Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease. , 2016, World Neurosurgery.

[13]  K. Schaller,et al.  Influence of age on pain intensity, functional impairment and health-related quality of life before and after surgery for lumbar degenerative disc disease , 2016, Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.

[14]  Karl Schaller,et al.  Pre- and postoperative correlation of patient-reported outcome measures with standardized Timed Up and Go (TUG) test results in lumbar degenerative disc disease , 2016, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[15]  K. Schaller,et al.  Validity and Reliability of a Measurement of Objective Functional Impairment in Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease: The Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test. , 2016, Neurosurgery.

[16]  Karl Schaller,et al.  Assessment of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in the Timed Up and Go Test After Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease , 2016, Neurosurgery.

[17]  K. Schaller,et al.  Sex differences in subjective and objective measures of pain, functional impairment, and health-related quality of life in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease , 2016, Pain.

[18]  A. Hegewald,et al.  Analysis of a performance-based functional test in comparison with the visual analog scale for postoperative outcome assessment after lumbar spondylodesis , 2016, European Spine Journal.

[19]  Fredrik Borgström,et al.  A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  Martin N. Stienen,et al.  The timed up and go test for lumbar degenerative disc disease , 2015, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[21]  D. Kreiner,et al.  An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update). , 2013, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[22]  M. McGirt,et al.  Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. , 2013, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[23]  B. Dahl,et al.  Prehabilitation and early rehabilitation after spinal surgery: randomized clinical trial , 2010, Clinical rehabilitation.

[24]  A. Mannion,et al.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: Part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index , 2009, European Spine Journal.

[25]  S. Berven,et al.  Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[26]  N. Semmer,et al.  Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[27]  M. Liang,et al.  Measurement Properties of a Self‐Administered Outcome Measure in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis , 1996, Spine.

[28]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.

[29]  A. Haig,et al.  A review of activity monitors as a new technology for objectifying function in lumbar spinal stenosis. , 2012, Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation.

[30]  P. Huddleston Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and Pain Scales , 2009 .