ISSLS PRIZE in Clinical Science 2023: comparison of degenerative MRI features of the intervertebral disc between those with and without chronic low back pain. An exploratory study of two large female populations using automated annotation.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship of degeneration to symptoms has been questioned. MRI detects apparently similar disc degeneration and degenerative changes in subjects both with and without back pain. We aimed to overcome these problems by re-annotating MRIs from asymptomatic and symptomatics groups onto the same grading system. METHODS: We analysed disc degeneration in pre-existing large MRI datasets. Their MRIs were all originally annotated on different scales. We re-annotated all MRIs independent of their initial grading system, using a verified, rapid automated MRI annotation system (SpineNet) which reported degeneration on the Pfirrmann (1-5) scale, and other degenerative features (herniation, endplate defects, marrow signs, spinal stenosis) as binary present/absent. We compared prevalence of degenerative features between symptomatics and asymptomatics. RESULTS: Pfirrmann degeneration grades in relation to age and spinal level were very similar for the two independent groups of symptomatics over all ages and spinal levels. Severe degenerative changes were significantly more prevalent in discs of symptomatics than asymptomatics in the caudal but not the rostral lumbar discs in subjects < 60 years. We found high co-existence of degenerative features in both populations. Degeneration was minimal in around 30% of symptomatics < 50 years. CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed age and disc level are significant in determining imaging differences between asymptomatic and symptomatic populations and should not be ignored. Automated analysis, by rapidly combining and comparing data from existing groups with MRIs and information on LBP, provides a way in which epidemiological and 'big data' analysis could be advanced without the expense of collecting new groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 2: sensitivity to change after spinal surgery.

When functional scales are to be used as treatment outcome measures, it is essential to know how responsive they are to clinical change. This information is essential not only for clinical decision-making, but also for the determination of sample size in clinical trials. The present study examined the responsiveness of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1 (ODI) after surgical treatment for low back pain. Before spine surgery 63 patients completed a questionnaire booklet containing the ODI, along with a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale (VAS), the Roland Morris disability questionnaire, and Likert scales for disability, medication intake and pain frequency. Six months after surgery, 57 (90%) patients completed the same questionnaire booklet and also answered Likert-scale questions on the global result of surgery, and on improvements in pain and disability. Both the effect size for the ODI change score 6 months after surgery (0.87) and the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the relative improvement in ODI score in relation to global outcome 6 months after surgery (0.90) indicated that the ODI showed good responsiveness. The ROC method revealed that a minimum reduction of the baseline (pre-surgery) ODI score by 18% (equal to a mean 8-point reduction in this patient group) represented the cut-off for indicating a "good" individual outcome 6 months after surgery (sensitivity 91.4% and specificity 82.4%). The German version of the ODI is a sensitive instrument for detecting clinical change after spinal surgery. Individual improvements after surgery of at least an 18% reduction on baseline values are associated with a good outcome. This figure can be used as a reliable guide for the determination of sample size in future clinical trials of spinal surgery.

Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity.

Patient-orientated assessment methods are of paramount importance in the evaluation of treatment outcome. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is one of the condition-specific questionnaires recommended for use with back pain patients. To date, no German version has been published in the peer-reviewed literature. A cross-cultural adaptation of the ODI for the German language was carried out, according to established guidelines. One hundred patients with chronic low-back pain (35 conservative, 65 surgical) completed a questionnaire booklet containing the newly translated ODI, along with a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale (VAS), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, and Likert scales for disability, medication intake and pain frequency [to assess ODI's construct (convergent) validity]. Thirty-nine of these patients completed a second questionnaire within 2 weeks (to assess test-retest reliability). The intraclass correlation coefficient for the test-retest reliability of the questionnaire was 0.96. In test-retest, 74% of the individual questions were answered identically, and 21% just one grade higher or lower. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was 3.4, giving a "minimum detectable change" (MDC(95%)) for the ODI of approximately 9 points, i.e. the minimum change in an individual's score required to be considered "real change" (with 95% confidence) over and above measurement error. The ODI scores correlated with VAS pain intensity (r = 0.78, P < 0.001) and Roland Morris scores (r = 0.80, P < 0.001). The mean baseline ODI scores differed significantly between the surgical and conservative patients (P < 0.001), and between the different categories of the Likert scales for disability, medication use and pain frequency (in each case P < 0.001). Our German version of the Oswestry questionnaire is reliable and valid, and shows psychometric characteristics as good as, if not better than, the original English version. It should represent a valuable tool for use in future patient-orientated outcome studies in German-speaking lands.