Single-center, prospective study.Objective.
Evaluating the responsiveness and minimal important changes (MICs) for the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire (SRS-22) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and adult idiopathic scoliosis (AS).Summary of Background Data.
Despite the SRS-22 properties have been investigated in various different languages, there is still a lack of information concerning responsiveness and MIC, limiting the use of SRS-22 for clinical and research purposes.Methods.
At the beginning and end of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs, 149 subjects with mild AIS (Cobb angle <25°) and 140 subjects with moderate AS (Cobb angle <35°) completed the SRS-22. Upon completing the programs, subjects also performed the global perceived effect (GPE) scales test, which was divided to produce a dichotomous outcome (improved vs. stable). Responsiveness was calculated for all SRS-22 domains but satisfaction with management by distribution (effect size; standardized response mean) and anchor-based methods (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curves; correlations between change scores of the SRS-22 and GPE). ROC curves were also used to compute the MICs.Results.
The effect size ranged from 1.23 to 1.50 in AIS and from 1.02 to 1.37 in AS. The standardized response mean ranged from 0.95 to 1.27 in AIS and from 0.66 to 0.90 in AS. The ROC analyses revealed the following MIC values (area under the curve; sensitivity; specificity): function, 0.70 (0.739;66;70) for AIS and 0.60 (0.842;84;76) for AS; pain, 0.70 (0.731;71;70) for AIS and 0.40 (0.817;81;70) for AS; mental health, 0.50 (0.708;83;58) for AIS and 0.55 (0.750;69;78) for AS; self-perceived image, 0.40 (0.609;79;42) for AIS and 0.60 (0.751;61;82) for AS. Correlations between change scores of the SRS-22 domains and GPE were low to moderate, ranging from −0.347 to −0.667.Conclusion.
The SRS-22 was sensitive in detecting clinical changes in subjects with adolescent and adult scoliosis. We recommend taking the MICs provided into account when assessing patients’ improvement or planning studies in these clinical contexts.Conclusion.
Level of Evidence: 3