Reliability and Validity of Cross Culturally Adapted Punjabi Version of NDI (NDI-P) in Patients with Neck Pain: A Psychometric Analysis

BackgroundNeck disability index (NDI) is one of the commonest patient-reported outcome measures used to evaluate disability related to neck pain. Its application to non-English-speaking Punjabi population is limited as a validated and cross-culturally adapted Punjabi version of NDI is not available. The purpose of the study was to analyze the psychometric properties of Punjabi version of neck disability index (NDI-P) in patients with neck pain.Materials and MethodsThe translation and cross-cultural adaptation of Punjabi version of NDI was done according to well-recommended guidelines. The pre-final version was tested on a set of 15 patients and suitable modifications were made. The final version was administered to 100 patients with neck pain of more than 2 weeks duration. Psychometric properties comprising internal consistency, test–re-test reliability, construct validity and factorial structure of the questionnaire were determined.ResultsThe developed NDI-P showed excellent internal consistency (Chronbach alpha of NDI-P is 0.87), test–re-test reliability (ICC 0.840) and construct validity (Spearman correlation coefficient with VAS 0.547). Factor analysis proved the questionnaire to be having a 2-factor structure with a total variance of 56.58%.ConclusionNDI (P) is a reliable and valid instrument for measurement of disability related to neck pain in Punjabi population. It can be used both in research and clinical care settings in future.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s43465-020-00280-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

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.     

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Behavioral Avoidance Test-Back Pain (BAT-Back) to the Turkish language

ObjectivePain-avoidance is considered to be one of the major leading factors to develop a chronic low back pain (CLBP). In this study, we aimed to translate the Behavioral Avoidance Test-Back Pain (BAT-Back) into Turkish and evaluate its psychometric properties in patients with CLBP.Methods115 patients with CLBP filled the provided socio-demographic information form, the “Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)", the “Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ)", the “Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK)", and the “Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS)". All patients and 40 pain free controls (PFC) were administered the Turkish version (TrBAT-Back) of the “Behavioral Avoidance Test-Back Pain” test. The internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's α coefficient. The test-retest reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). To evaluate the structural validity of TrBAT-Back, its correlation with FABQ, TSK, ODI, and HADS was examined.ResultsThe internal consistency of TrBAT-Back was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.97) and its test-retest reliability was good (ICC = 0.87). Its high correlation with the FABQ-physical activity scores and moderate correlation with the TSK scores supported the structural validity. The TrBAT-Back scores showed a statistically significant moderate correlation with the higher level of pain and disability. Despite the low degree of positive correlation, a high level of anxiety (HADS-anxiety) is potentially associated with avoidance behaviour. CLBP patients and controls differed significantly on TrBAT-Back avoidance scores.ConclusionWe are of the opinion that, compared to the self-report scales, TrBAT-Back will provide more objective data in detecting avoidance behaviour associated with pain in Turkish speaking patients with CLBP.     

Greek versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaires

Disability questionnaires are increasingly used for clinical assessment, outcome measurement of treatment and research methodology of low back pain. Their use in different countries and cultural groups must follow certain guidelines for translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The translation of such an instrument must be tested for its reliability and validity to be applied and to allow comparability of data. The Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire are two disability questionnaires most commonly used as outcome measures in patients with low back pain. The two questionnaires were translated for use with the Greek population, were back translated and tested, and became available in a final version. The Greek versions of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire were tested in 697 patients with low back pain. Internal consistency reliability for the Greek translation of the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire reached a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.833 and 0.885 respectively. Face validity and content validity were ensured. Concurrent validity was assessed using a six-point pain scale as a criterion. The correlation of both scales was significant. The Greek translation of these disability questionnaires provided reliable and valid instruments for the evaluation of Greek-speaking patients with low back pain.     

Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Part 1: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations

Over the past 10 years, a plethora of back-specific patient-orientated outcome measures have appeared in the literature. Standardisation has been advocated by an expert panel of researchers proposing a core set of instruments. Of the condition-specific questionnaires the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is recommended for use with low back pain (LBP) patients. To date, no Danish version of the ODI exists which has been cross-culturally adapted, validated and published in the peer-reviewed literature. A cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the ODI for the Danish language was carried out according to established guidelines: 233 patients [half of the patients were seen in the primary sector (PrS) and half in the secondary sector (SeS) of the Danish health care system] with LBP and/or leg pain completed a questionnaire booklet at baseline, 1 day or 1 week and 8 weeks follow-up. The booklet contained the Danish version of the ODI, along with the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, the LBP Rating Scale, the SF36 (physical function and bodily pain scales) and a global pain rating. For the ODI test–retest analysis (93 stable patients) resulted in an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91, a mean difference of 0.8 and 95% limits of agreements of − 11.5 to + 13. Thus, a worsening greater than 12 points and improvement greater than 13 points can be considered a “real” change above the measurement error. A substantial floor effect was found in PrS patients (14.1%). The ODI showed satisfactory cross-sectional discriminant validity when compared to the external measures. Concurrent validity of the ODI revealed: (a) a 10% and 21% lower ODI score compared to the disability and pain measures, respectively, (b) a poorer differentiation of patient disabilities and (c) an acceptable individual ODI score level compared to the external measures. Longitudinal external construct validity showed moderate correlations (range 0.56–0.78). We conclude that the Danish version of the ODI is both a valid and reliable outcome instrument in two LBP patient populations. The ODI is probably most appropriate for use in SeS patients.Part 2 of this article is available at:     

Validation of the Japanese version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire

The study was designed to validate a translated, culturally adapted questionnaire. We examined the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Japanese version of the Roland-Morris Questionnaire (RDQ) when assessing disability in Japanese patients with low back pain. The RDQ is a reliable, validated scale used to measure disability caused by low back pain. However, no validated Japanese version of this questionnaire is available. A series of 214 outpatients with low back pain participated in this validation study. The patients were given the RDQ and the SF-36, and assessed their pain and global rating of health. Among them, 57 who were clinically stable were given the RDQ again 2 weeks later. The reliability was examined based on the test-retest method and internal consistency. Sufficient reliability was demonstrated with a Chronbach's · coefficient of 0.85, and the reproducibility for the 30 patients was r = 0.91. The principal component analysis showed unidimensionality. The RDQ score of the 133 patients was significantly improved after treatment. The Japanese version of the RDQ is a useful scale that is easy to use with reliability, validity, and responsiveness when assessing patients with low back pain.     

Psychometric validation of the adapted Traditional Chinese version of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ)

Background

Low back pain is a common health problem encountered by various populations among different countries. This prospective study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) into Traditional Chinese and to assess its validity, reliability and sensitivity in Chinese patients experiencing low back pain.

Mid- and long-term results of open discectomy: a clinical study with three to twelve years of follow-up

Abstract Long-term studies on the results of open discectomy (OD) for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation have shown a high percentage of patients complaining of low back or leg pain and obtaining a permanent disability allowance. We evaluated the clinical results of OD in a consecutive series of patients with 3–12 years of follow-up. A standard questionnaire, containing the Oswestry disability questionnaire (ODQ), was administered to 94 patients who had undergone OD at our institute between 1991 and 1999. A total of 85 patients (55.2%) gave complete information for the study; their mean follow-up was 85.9 months. Forty patients (25.9%) consented to a second clinical examination. The overall mean Oswestry disability index (ODI) was 17.43. At clinical follow-up, 29 of 40 patients (72.5%) suffered low back pain (LBP) with a mean ODI of 21.56. The presence of LBP correlated positively with a higher ODI score. Re-operation was performed in 11 of 85 patients: a 2nd OD procedure was done for recurrent disc herniation in 6 cases and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with posterior instrumentation was performed in 5 patients with disabling LBP. ODI scores in these two groups were respectively 37.33 and 13.2 with a significant difference. Long-term studies on OD have shown a deterioration of the clinical results with time. LBP is the complaint most responsible for a patients disability. Our study shows that at the mid- to long-term follow-up, OD still provides good clinical results, but also reveals a high percentage of LBP that is related to the onset of a symptomatic insufficiency of the operated disc. These data seem to be confirmed by the significant improvement of ODI after PLIF.     

The Banff Patellar Instability Instrument: validity and reliability of an Indonesian version

Background

The Banff Patellar Instability Instrument (BPII) is a valuable scoring tool for assessing patellofemoral instability in patients suffering from patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS). The BPII 2.0 is a shortened version of the BPII. However, there is no Indonesian edition of BPII 2.0 that has been validated. This study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Indonesian version of the BPII 2.0.

Materials and methods

This was a cross-sectional study that used a forward–backward translation protocol to create an Indonesian version of the BPII 2.0. Thirty patients with PFPS were given the questionnaires. The questionnaire's validity was evaluated by analyzing the correlation between score of each subscale and the overall score to the Indonesian version of the Kujala score using Pearson correlation coefficient, while the reliability was evaluated by measuring the internal consistency (Cronbach α) and test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient).

Results

The Indonesian version of BPII 2.0 and the Indonesian version of Kujala score had a strong Pearson correlation coefficient for construct validity. For all subscales, Cronbach α was 0.90–0.98, indicating adequate internal consistency. The test–retest reliability was high, with intraclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.89 to 0.98 for all subscales. There was no difference in the Indonesian version of BPII 2.0 response between the first and second administration of the questionnaire which was taken 7 days afterward.

Conclusion

The Indonesian version of BPII 2.0 was determined to be valid and reliable and is therefore an objective instrument to evaluate patellofemoral instability in patients with PFPS in the Indonesian population.

     

汉译Roland-Morris功能障碍调查表评估下腰痛患者的可靠性

目的:探讨应用汉译Roland-Morris功能障碍调查表评定下腰痛患者的可靠性。方法:将Roland-Morris功能障碍调查表按一定的要求翻译成中文调查表(CRMDQ),对48例住院拟手术的下腰痛患者(男30例,女18例;年龄26～73岁,平均38.5岁),用CRMDQ、中文版Oswestry功能障碍指数(CODI)、视觉模拟评分(VAS)先后进行两次测试,间隔期2d,检测CRMDQ的可重复性;对门诊158例下腰痛患者在就诊时行CRMDQ、CODI、VAS测试,对CRMDQ与CODI、VAS测试结果进行Spearman秩相关分析。结果:CRMDQ具有良好的可重复性(r=0.945,P<0.01);在CRMDQ有效性测试中,与CODI、VAS比较显示出显著的相关性(CRMDQ-CODI:r=0.386;CRMDQ-VAS:r=0.478,P<0.05)。结论:CRMDQ测试具有良好的可重复性和有效性,可用于对下腰痛患者的功能障碍评估。     

Evaluation of lumbar stiffness after long-level fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis via a Chinese version of the lumbar stiffness disability index

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLong-level spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS)seeks to eliminate spinal motion in an attempt to alleviate pain, improve deformity, and reduce disability. However, this surgery considerably impairs the performance of activities of daily living (ADL) due to the resulting stiffness. The lumbar stiffness disability index (LSDI) is a validated measure of the effect of lumbar stiffness on functional activity, but this index might not be fully applicable to the elderly Chinese population given several specific lifestyle characteristics.PURPOSETo evaluate lumbar stiffness in patients with DLS after long-level fusion by Chinese-LSDI (C-LSDI).STUDY DESIGNA retrospective study.PATIENT SAMPLEA total of 129 DLS patients who underwent long-level (≧4 levels) fusion surgery with at least one-year follow-up from June 2009 to September 2017 were retrospectively included.OUTCOME MEASURESThe C-LSDI was designed by modifying LSDI and Korean-LSDI (K-LSDI) based on elderly Chinese lifestyles and the internal consistency and retest repeatability of the patient-reported outcome questionnaire in the measurement of the impact of lumbar stiffness on functional abilities was assessed.METHODSThe radiographic parameters including Cobb angle, apical vertebral translation (AVT), coronal vertical axis (CVA), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), thoracic kyphosis (TK), thoracolumbar kyphosis (TLK), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), and PI-LL, and clinical symptoms including visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and low extremity pain; Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association-29 (JOA–29), Scoliosis Research Society⁃22 (SRS–22), 36⁃Item short form survey (SF–36), physical component scores (PCS) and mental component scores (MCS) were measured preoperatively and at the last follow-up.RESULTSCompared with LSDI and K-LSDI, the C-LSDI demonstrated higher internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.902) and retest reliability (Internal consistency coefficients, ICC=0.904) in the elderly Chinese population. All patients showed increased lumbar stiffness and significant improvement in pain and deformity postoperatively. Regarding items, such as performing personal hygiene after toileting and getting out of a car, people reported more inconvenience with increasingly fixed levels.CONCLUSIONSThis study demonstrated that the C-LSDI questionnaire was a reliable and valid instrument for assessing functional limitations due to lumbar stiffness among elderly Chinese patients with DLS after long-level fusion. Although the effects of stiffness did trend toward greater impacts among patients who underwent longer fusions, most patients were satisfied with trade-offs of function and pain relief in exchange for perceived increases in lumbar stiffness.     

Development,validity, and reliability of The Assessment of Pain and Occupational Performance (POP): a new instrument using two dimensions in the investigation of disability in back pain

Background contentQuestionnaires for measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain (LBP) focus on disability and present responses for each question in a predetermined, fixed relationship between “can do/difficulties and pain.” Their design does not permit a separation of the two.PurposeTo present the development of The Assessment of Pain and Occupational Performance (POP) and to evaluate validity and reliability.Study designA prospective, consecutive study of patients investigated by use of the POP.Patient sampleA total of 220 patients participated in the study.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study including 53 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, empirical tests of content and construct validity established the definitive version of the POP. The POP focuses on performance of activities. It is a disease-specific, discriminative assessment instrument designed for patients with back pain (BP) and LBP. Based on a semi-structured interview the POP investigates each of 36 activities in two dimensions, with separate, defined scales from “normally healthy” to “extremes” for level of activity (x-scale) and pain intensity (y-scale). The final scores are expressed in percent, 0% to 100%. Patients with chronic LBP (CLBP) (n=142) were allocated to the specific (S) group, that is, patients with specific LBP problems (n=97) or to the nonspecific (NS) group, that is, those with NS BP (n=45). The ability of the POP to differentiate between the two known groups was evaluated. Construct–convergent validity between the POP and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was carried out for the S group. Inter-rater reliability was established between six pairs of raters who examined 25 patients recruited from primary health care, the P-LBP group.ResultsIn construct known group validity, the median, the interquartile range, and the Mann-Whitney U test showed that the S group had a significantly higher level of activity (p<.001) combined with worse pain (p=.001) compared with the NS group. There were significant differences between the two groups in performing activities in the forward bending position (10 items) and in the upright standing position (9 items). The result of Spearman rank order correlation showed a strong relationship between the ODI and the POP for level of activity (r=0.70, p≤.001). The multiple correlation coefficient between the total score of the ODI (10 items) and the total score of the POP (36 items) was r=0.72 and p≤.001. Inter-rater reliability—the standard deviation of the differences was less than 1 point (scale 0–5). A Bland–Altman plot showed the mean differences for the level of activity of the dressing/undressing item. The average percentage agreement was 80% on the x- and y-scales. In POP 36, the average Kappa for level of activity was 0.79, which is good agreement, and for pain 0.84, which is very good agreement.ConclusionThe construction of the POP allows the patient to count, and the occupational therapist to investigate, from full level of activity to avoidance and from no pain to worst imaginable pain for each physically loaded task in personal activities of daily living (ADL), transfer/transport, instrumental ADL, and social activities. The POP can differentiate between groups concerning level of activity and pain, and appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating LBP. The POP should be considered for use in both clinical and research applications.     

Reliability and validity of Turkish version of the Scoliosis Japanese Questionnaire- 27 in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of an adapted Turkish version of the Scoliosis Japanese Questionnaire- 27 (SJ- 27).MethodsTranslation and retranslation of the English version of the SJ- 27 was conducted, and all steps of the cross-cultural adaptation process were performed. The Turkish version of the SJ- 27, the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS- 22) questionnaire and the Short Form-36 (SF- 36) were performed to 139 patients with AIS. Reliability was assessed using the test–retest method (Pearson's correlation coefficient); internal consistency was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha. Validity was assessed by correlating the SJ- 27 with the SRS- 22 questionnaire and SF- 36.ResultsThe mean Cobb angles were 23.2 ± 8.3° and 19 ± 5.9° for thoracic and lumbar regions, respectively. The SJ- 27 showed excellent test/retest reliability with an Intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.99. Internal consistency of the SJ- 27 was found to be very good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.991). The SJ- 27 demonstrated very good construct validity with the SRS- 22 total score (r = 0.61). The similar domains of the SJ- 27 and SF- 36 questionnaire was correlated also in the study.ConclusionsThe Turkish version of the SJ- 27 to measure health related quality of life in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis was found to have very good validity, excellent reliability, and high internal consistency.     

经Wiltse入路与后正中入路治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症的疗效比较

目的比较Wiltse入路与后正中入路治疗腰椎椎间盘突出症(LDH)的疗效。方法收集2012年1月—2015年12月在本院行手术治疗的LDH患者85例,其中经Wiltse入路43例(A组),传统后正中入路42例(B组)。记录2组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量及住院天数等资料;采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分评价患者腰痛和下肢痛,采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评价患者功能状况,采用日本骨科学会(JOA)评分评价患者腰椎功能。结果 A组患者在术中出血量、术后引流量、住院天数、术后腰痛VAS评分方面优于B组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);2组手术时间、术后下肢痛VAS评分、ODI及JOA评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。术后随访6个月、2年,A组腰痛VAS评分优于B组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论采用Wiltse入路治疗LDH在降低手术创伤、减少住院天数、减少术后腰痛、减少残留神经功能后遗症等方面均优于传统后正中入路,临床值得推广。     

简体中文版功能评分指数在下腰痛患者中的应用及信度效度测量

目的探讨中文版功能评分指数（SC-FRI）对下腰痛患者的应用价值,评估其用于国人的信度和效度。方法按照国际指南将FRI翻译成中文并进行跨文化调试。采用经调试确定的SC-FRI、中文版Oswestry功能障碍指数（SC-ODI）、SF-36健康调查量表（SF-36）和视觉模拟量表（VAS）对2010年12月至2011年3月于长海医院骨科门诊就诊、符合病例选择标准的115例下腰痛患者进行疼痛和功能状态的自我评估。检验其内部一致性、重测信度、同时标准效度和结构效度。结果 SC-FRI有非常高的完成率（96%）,无天花板和地板现象,具有良好的内部一致性（Cronbachα系数=0.897,去除一个条目后为0.851~0.890）和重测信度（组内相关系数ICC=0.948,95%CI=0.917~0.968）。同时标准效度分析证实SC-FRI与SC-ODI、VAS有高度相关性（r=0.958,0.852）;结构效度结果提示SC-FRI和SF-36中的躯体功能、躯体疼痛、社会功能、物理职能、总体健康有较高相关性（r=-0.802,-0.698,-0.573,-0.565,-0.435）。结论 SC-FRI具有十分良好的信度和效度,简单易行,可用于对国内下腰痛患者疼痛和功能状态的评估。     

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the simplified chinese version of the fremantle back awareness questionnaire in patients with low back Pain

Purpose

The Fremantle back awareness questionnaire (FreBAQ) was recently developed as simple and quick tool to assess back-specific body perception in Low back pain (LBP) patients. The aim of the present study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the Fremantle back awareness questionnaire (FreBAQ) into a Simplified Chinese version (FreBAQ-C), and evaluate the reliability and validity of the FreBAQ-C in patients with non-specific Chronic Low back pain (CLBP).

Methods

The FreBAQ was translated into Chinese according to established methods. Internal consistency was assessed according to Cronbach’s alpha. Test–retest reliability was estimated by Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Construct validity was evaluated by correlations between the FreBAQ-C and Visual analogue scale (VAS), Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RDQ), Pain catastrophizing scale (PCS), Tampa scale for kinesiophobia (TSK) as well as Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS).

Results

A total of 105 participants (38 males and 67 females) were included in this study with the mean age of 54.1 ± 15.6 years, mean duration of LBP of 6.8 ± 4.6 years. The FreBAQ-C total scores were well distributed, with no floor or ceiling effects. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.833). ICC of test–retest reliability was good (0.897, 95% confidence interval: 0.852–0.929). The limits of agreement (LOA) ranged from − 5.8 to 6.3. The Standard error of measurement (SEM) and Minimum detectable change (MDC) were 2.16 and 5.99. Construct validity was confirmed by significant correlation of The FreBAQ-C and VAS during motion (r = 0.274, p = 0.005) and rest (r = 0.243, p = 0.012), RDQ (r = 0.377, p < 0.001), PCS (r = 0.439, p < 0.001), and TSK(r = 0.311, p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The FreBAQ-C was demonstrated to have acceptable reliability and validity for patients with non-specific CLBP in Chinese mainland. It will allow evaluating body preception of the back in the Chinese population with CLBP.

     

Risk factors for back pain-related loss of working time after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a 5-year follow-up study

The aim of this study is to explore the occurrence and the risk factors of back-related loss of working time in patients undergoing surgery for lumbar disc herniation. One hundred and fifty-two gainfully employed patients underwent surgery for lumbar disc herniation. Two months postoperatively, those patients completed a self-report questionnaire including queries on back and leg pain (VAS), functional capacity (Oswestry disability index—ODI, version 1.0), and motivation to work. After 5 years, lost working time was evaluated by means of a postal questionnaire about sick leave and disability pensions. The cumulative number of back pain-related days-off work was calculated for each patient. All 152 patients, 86 men and 66 women, were prescribed sick leave for the first 2 months. Thereafter, 80 (53%) of them reported back pain-related sick leave or early retirement. A permanent work disability pension due to back problems was awarded to 15 (10%) patients, 5 men (6%) and 10 women (15%). Median number of all work disability days per year was 11 (interquartile range [IQR] 9–37); it was 9 days (IQR 9–22) in patients with minimal disability (ODI score 0–20) at 2 months postoperatively and 67 days (IQR 9–352) in those with moderate or severe disability (ODI > 20; P < 0.001). The respective means were 61, 29, and 140 days/year. Multivariate analysis showed ODI > 20, leg pain, and poor motivation to work to be the risk factors for extension of work disability. Results of the present study show that after the lumbar disc surgery, poor outcome in questionnaire measures the physical functioning (ODI) and leg pain at 2 months postoperatively, as well as poor motivation to work, are associated with the loss of working time. Patients with unfavourable prognosis should be directed to rehabilitation before the loss of employment.     

Cross-cultural adaptation and clinical evaluation of a Korean version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand outcome questionnaire (K-DASH)

We developed a Korean version of the disabilities of arm, shoulder, and hand outcome questionnaire (K-DASH) by performing cross-cultural adaptation and evaluated the reliability and validity of the K-DASH. The K-DASH, SF-36, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain were administered to 161 patients with arm, shoulder, and hand problems. The internal consistency of the disability/symptom scores of the K-DASH was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.94). The retest assessed 131 of the 161 patients. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.91. The construct validity was evaluated using the correlations between the K-DASH and the SF-36 and VAS. The physical and mental component summary scales of the SF-36 and the VAS at rest and during activity were significantly correlated with the DASH disability/symptom scores. Despite the linguistic and cultural differences, the reliability and validity of the K-DASH were just as excellent as those of the original DASH.     

Translation and validation of the German version of the foot and ankle outcome score

Purpose

Outcome assessment is critical in evaluating the efficacy of orthopaedic procedures. The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) is a 42-item questionnaire divided into five subscales, which has been validated in several languages. Germany has no validated outcome score for general foot and ankle pathology. The aim of this study was to develop a German version of the FAOS and to investigate its psychometric properties.

Materials and methods

Forward and backward translation was executed according to official guidelines. The final version of the FAOS was investigated in 150 patients with various foot and ankle disorders. All patients completed the FAOS, Short Form-36, numeric rating scales for pain and disability, and the Hannover questionnaire. The FAOS was re-administered after 1 week. Test–retest reliability, internal consistency, minimal detectable change, construct validity, and floor and ceiling effects were analyzed.

Results

Test–retest reliability and internal consistency of each subscale were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.88–0.95; Cronbach’s α, 0.94–0.98). The minimal detectable changes of each subscale were 17.1–20.8 at the individual level and 2.0–2.4 at group level. There were moderate to strong correlations between FAOS subscales and physical outcomes and low to moderate correlations between FAOS subscales and mental outcomes. Floor and ceiling effects were not present.

Conclusion

The German version of the FAOS is a reliable and valid instrument for use in foot and ankle patients.     

Validation of the Korean Version of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire in Patients With Hallux Valgus

The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) is a practical, reliable, and valid questionnaire for hallux valgus surgery and has been translated into several languages. However, the MOXFQ has not been translated into Korean. In the present study, we aimed to translate and evaluate the validity and reliability of the Korean version of the MOXFQ for patients affected by hallux valgus. In accordance with the guidelines of cross-cultural adaptation, we translated the English version of MOXFQ into Korean and then backward translated it into English. We sent out letters that included the Korean version of the MOXFQ, a visual analog scale measure of pain, and a validated Korean version of the short-form 36-item Health Survey to 135 patients with hallux valgus. A retest was administered after 2 weeks. Of the 135 patients, 104 responded to the first questionnaire, and 82 of the first-time responders returned their second questionnaires. We evaluated the test–retest reliability, internal consistency, concurrent validity, and construct validity of the Korean version of the MOXFQ. The intraclass correlation coefficient for test–retest reliability was 0.82 for the total MOXFQ and ranged from 0.81 to 0.82 for the 3 subscales. Cronbach's alpha for the total MOXFQ was 0.85 and ranged from 0.8 to 0.92 for the 3 subscales. Concurrent and construct validity was supported by significant correlation with the visual analog scale and short-form 36-item Health Survey subscale scores. The Korean version of the MOXFQ was tested, and it was found to be a valid and reliable instrument for patients with hallux valgus.