Patient-reported outcome measures following elective lumbar fusion surgery demonstrate major heterogeneity. Individualized prediction tools can provide valuable insights for shared decision-making. We externally validated the spine surgical care and outcomes assessment programme/comparative effectiveness translational network (SCOAP-CERTAIN) model for prediction of 12-month minimum clinically important difference in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and in numeric rating scales for back (NRS-BP) and leg pain (NRS-LP) after elective lumbar fusion.
Data from a prospective registry were obtained. We calculated the area under the curve (AUC), calibration slope and intercept, and Hosmer-Lemeshow values to estimate discrimination and calibration of the models.
We included 100 patients, with average age of 50.4 ± 11.4 years. For 12-month ODI, AUC was 0.71 while the calibration intercept and slope were 1.08 and 0.95, respectively. For NRS-BP, AUC was 0.72, with a calibration intercept of 1.02, and slope of 0.74. For NRS-LP, AUC was 0.83, with a calibration intercept of 1.08, and slope of 0.95. Sensitivity ranged from 0.64 to 1.00, while specificity ranged from 0.38 to 0.65. A lack of fit was found for all three models based on Hosmer-Lemeshow testing.
The SCOAP-CERTAIN tool can accurately predict which patients will achieve favourable outcomes. However, the predicted probabilities-which are the most valuable in clinical practice-reported by the tool do not correspond well to the true probability of a favourable outcome. We suggest that any prediction tool should first be externally validated before it is applied in routine clinical practice. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.