Reliability,validity, and responsiveness of the Japanese version of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale

Background  

Until recently, no Japanese versions have existed of the more popular, patient-reported disability questionnaires for neck pain. This study aimed to test the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Japanese version of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS), one of the most widely used questionnaires in patients with neck pain.     

The Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and neck pain, disability and range of motion: a narrative review of the literature

Background:

The Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) that was developed in 1990 is a 17 item scale originally developed to measure the fear of movement related to chronic lower back pain.

Objective:

To review the literature regarding TSK and neck pain, perceived disability and range of motion of the cervical spine.

Methods:

Medline, MANTIS, Index to Chiropractic Literature and CINAHL were searched.

Results:

A total of 16 related articles were found and divided into four categories: TSK and Neck Pain; TSK, Neck Pain and Disability; TSK, Neck Pain, Disability and Strength; and TSK, Neck Pain and Surface Electromyography.

Conclusion:

The fear avoidance model can be applied to neck pain sufferers and there is value from a psychometric perspective in using the TSK to assess kinesiophobia. Future research should investigate if, and to what extent, other measureable factors commonly associated with neck pain, such as decreased range of motion, correlate with kinesiophobia.     

The ability to change of three questionnaires for neck pain

OBJECTIVE: To assess the sensitivity to change of three algofunctional scales for neck pain. METHODS: Observational, prospective study. Patients with neck disorders were included. Pain and patients' perceived handicap assessed on visual analogue scales (VAS Pain, VAS Handicap), and functional disability measures (Neck Disability Index, Neck Pain and Disability Scale, Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire) were recorded twice, at baseline and at an 11-month follow-up assessment. Sensitivity to change was assessed using the effect size (ES) and the standardised response mean (SRM), and the non-parametric Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r) was used to assess the correlation between quantitative variable changes and patients' overall opinion. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a Tukey-test was performed to determine if the scales distinguished improved, stable, and deteriorated patients. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients (43 women, mean age 49 years) were included and evaluated twice at an interval of 11 +/- 2 months. The three scales showed good sensitivity to change. The ANOVA showed a group effect, and individual changes in the scales scores were statistically different in two-by-two comparisons (improved, stable or deteriorated patients). Changes in NPDS scores had the highest correlation with patient's overall assessment (r = 0.592). CONCLUSION: The three scales can detect changes in patients with neck disorders. Changes in NPDS score had the best correlation with patients' overall opinion concerning their neck disorder and this questionnaire should be given preference in clinical trials.     

Postural sway does not differentiate individuals with chronic low back pain,single and multisite chronic musculoskeletal pain,or pain-free controls: a cross-sectional study of 229 subjects

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPhysical activity in its various forms are the most recommended prevention and treatment strategy for chronic low back pain (CLBP). Standing postural stability is a prerequisite for many types of physical activities. Systematic reviews have investigated the evidence for an association between CLBP and postural stability but results remain inconclusive.PURPOSEOur primary objective was to compare postural stability between pain-free controls and subjects with CLBP with or without leg pain and single and multisite chronic musculoskeletal pain subjects. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the association between postural stability with CLBP intensity and duration, demographics, physical characteristics and validated health and pain-related patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGCross-sectional study in a private chiropractic clinic settingPATIENT SAMPLESubjects included 42 pain-free controls and 187 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain divided into CLBP with or without leg pain and single and multisite pain groups.OUTCOME MEASURESPain intensity was measured using the numerical pain rating scale, PROMs Central Sensitization Inventory, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, The Depression Scale, EuroQol-5D, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and Pain and Sleep Questionnaire Three-Item Index disability. Group differences were measured using area and velocity of sway on the force plate.METHODSPostural stability was assessed using a force plate on four 60-second bipedal quiet stance tests: eyes open on a stable surface, eyes closed on a stable surface, eyes open on an unstable foam surface, eyes closed on an unstable foam surface. Following the clinic visit, subjects completed an online web-based data entry detailing pain history, demographic data, physical characteristics, pain intensity via the numerical pain rating scale, and PROMS.RESULTSPostural sway parameters did not differ between pain-free controls and subjects with CLBP with or without leg pain and single and multisite chronic musculoskeletal pain subjects. Furthermore, severity and duration of CLBP pain in addition to central sensitization, kinesiophobia, depression, quality of life, disability, and effect of pain on sleep only had very weak associations with postural stability.CONCLUSIONSChronic musculoskeletal pain appears not to influence bipedal postural stability.     

Validity of the French-language version of the Quebec back pain disability scale in low back pain patients in France

OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to evaluate the acceptability in France of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) in its original French-language version and to study its correlational validity against indicators of impairment, pain, disability, psychological status, and perceived health status. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients with chronic low back pain were recruited at the rheumatology outpatient clinic of a French hospital. A physical examination was performed for determination of an impairment score, and scales were completed for pain (visual analog scale and Saint-Antoine Questionnaire), disability (QBPDS and Dallas Scale [DS]), perceived health status (Nottingham Health Profile, NHP), and psychological status (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS). RESULTS: Acceptability, internal consistency, and content validity of the QBPDS were satisfactory. Investigation of correlational validity showed good agreement with the DPQ (r = 0.755) and NHP (r = 0.739) and fair agreement with the impairment score (r = 0.449), the VAS pain score (r = 0.448), and the HADS score (r = 0.473). The QBPDS showed good discriminating power. Validity of the QBPDS was confirmed. DISCUSSION: Our results confirm the good measurement properties of the original French-language version of the QBPDS in French hospital-clinic patients with chronic low back pain. Comparison of the QBPDS and DPQ in this study shows that the QBPDS is better for evaluating disability, whereas the DPQ evaluates the overall, functional, psychological, and social impact of low back pain.     

Neck pain and disability due to neck pain: what is the relation?

Pain and disability are interrelated, but the relationship between pain and disability is not straightforward. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between neck pain (NP) intensity, NP duration, and disability based on the population-based ‘Funen Neck and Chest Pain’ study. Pain intensity was measured using 11-box numerical rating scales, pain duration was measured using the Standardized Nordic Questionnaire, and disability was measured by the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale. Spearman rank correlation coefficients and logistic regression analyses were used to measure correlations and strength of associations between pain intensity, pain duration, and disability given domain specific characteristics (socioeconomic, health and physical, comorbidity, and variables related to consequences of NP). Neck pain was very common, but mainly mild and did not result in major disability. The correlations between NP intensity and disability were moderate but strongly associated, whereas weaker correlations and almost no associations were found between NP duration and disability. Pain duration is a poor indicator of disability. Given these variations, pain intensity and disability should be considered as two distinct dimensions and measured separately. These results have implications for future clinical and epidemiological studies.     

The influence of intense exercise-based physical therapy program on back pain anticipated before and induced by physical activities.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Pain anticipated before and induced by physical activities has been shown to influence the physical performance of patients with chronic back pain. Limited data exist as to the influence of treatment on this component of pain. PURPOSE: This study attempted to determine if pain anticipated before and induced by physical activities was altered during an exercise-oriented physical therapy program for chronic back pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Subjects were recruited from three physical therapy sites with similar spine rehabilitation programs that used intense exercise delivered in a group format. During the recruitment period, 70 subjects with chronic low back pain and disability agreed to participate and complied with recommended treatments. The primary outcome measures were anticipated and induced pain as assessed by visual analog scales (VAS) during six tests of back flexibility and strength. Additional outcome measures included the performance levels of these six tests (trunk flexion, extension, straight leg raising, back strength, lifting from floor to waist and waist to shoulder height), global back and leg VAS and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire scores. METHODS: At evaluation for the spine rehabilitation programs, we recorded the anticipated and induced pain levels associated with the six tests of back function, the performance levels on each test and global pain and disability scores. Subjects then participated in the spine rehabilitation program that consisted of intense exercise delivered up to three times per week, for 2 hours over a period of 6 weeks. All outcome measures were reassessed at discharge. Pre- and posttreatment outcome scores were statistically compared using paired sample t tests and chi-squared test. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to compare anticipated and induced pain results with global back and leg pain VAS scores, Oswestry scores and physical performance levels for each physical test. RESULTS: Most measures of anticipated and induced pain improved between evaluation and discharge. Improvements were noted for global back pain (p<.001), leg pain (p=.001), disability (p<.001) and performance on each physical testing (p<.001) after treatment. Performances on all physical testing correlated with anticipated and induced pain for all tests at evaluation but only for measures of flexibility at discharge. Improvements in global pain and disability correlated with improvements in anticipated and induced pain with physical testing. CONCLUSION: Anticipated and induced pain with physical activities was lessened after physical therapy using exercise. Anticipated and induced pain with physical activities related to physical performance levels, global pain and disability ratings. These findings may help explain how exercise exerts a positive influence on chronic back pain and disability.     

No difference in postoperative complications,pain, and functional outcomes up to 2 years after incidental durotomy in lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective,multi-institutional,propensity-matched analysis of 1,741 patients

BackgroundIncidental durotomies occur in up to 17% of spinal operations. Controversy exists regarding the short- and long-term consequences of durotomies.PurposeThe primary aim of this study was to assess the effect of incidental durotomies on the immediate postoperative complications and patient-reported outcome measures.Study designProspective study.Patient sampleA total of 1,741 patients undergoing index lumbar spine fusion were selected from a multi-institutional prospective data registry.Outcome measuresPatient-reported outcome measures used in this study included back pain (BP-Visual Analog Scale), leg pain (LP-Visual Analog Scale), and Oswestry Disability Index.MethodsA total of 1,741 patients were selected from a multi-institutional prospective data registry, who underwent primary lumbar fusion for low back pain and/or radiculopathy between January 2003 and December 2010. We collected and analyzed data on patient demographics, postoperative complications, back pain, leg pain, and functional disability over 2 years, with risk-adjusted propensity score modeling.ResultsIncidental durotomies occurred in 70 patients (4%). Compared with the control group (n=1,671), there was no significant difference in postoperative infection (p=.32), need for reoperation (p=.85), or symptomatic neurologic damage (p=.66). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, there was no difference in patient-reported outcomes of back pain (BP-Visual Analog Scale), leg pain (LP-Visual Analog Scale), or functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index) (p>.3), with results remaining consistent in the propensity-matched cohort analysis (p>.4).ConclusionWithin the context of an on-going debate on the consequences of incidental durotomy, we found no difference in neurologic symptoms, infection, reoperation, back pain, leg pain, or functional disability over a 2-year follow-up period.     

Subjective health measure used on Chinese patients with neck pain in Hong Kong

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective observational study was conducted on the use of the Chinese version of the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire. OBJECTIVE: To examine the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire in Chinese patients with neck pain in Hong Kong. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is increasing recognition that patient perspectives are essential both in making medical decisions and in judging the treatment outcomes. A valid Chinese version of a neck disability index questionnaire is urgently needed for effective and reliable evaluation of the treatment outcomes for patients with neck pain. METHODS: Two samples with 532 consecutive adult patients with neck pain from seven physiotherapy outpatient departments in Hong Kong who completed the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire were observed and measured at different intervals: at the beginning of physiotherapy, at 7 days, at 3 weeks, and 6 weeks after physiotherapy. RESULTS: The questionnaire had good content validity, very good test-retest reliability, and internal consistency (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.95; Cronbach's alpha, 0.87). It also had good validity (Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.59 when the score was correlated with that of a generic 42-item Chinese health questionnaire) and good responsiveness (effect size of 1.11 at week 6 after treatment began). CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire has been shown to demonstrate very good content validity, a high degree of test-retest reliability, and internal consistency. It also exhibited good construct validity and high sensitivity to changes in severity over time.     

Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations

Clinicians and researchers increasingly recognize the importance of the patient's perspective in the evaluations of the effectiveness of treatment. The rapid growth in the number and types of patient-based outcome measures can be confusing. This supplement provides a state-of-the-art review of the available tools. In this paper, the key recommendations from the participating authors are summarized. A core set of measures should include the following five domains: back specific function, generic health status, pain, work disability, and patient satisfaction. Two commonly used measures of back-specific function are recommended: the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. Among the generic measures, the SF-36 strikes the best balance between length, reliability, validity, responsiveness, and experience in large populations of patients with back pain. Moreover, the SF-36 Bodily Pain Scale provides a brief measure of pain intensity and pain interference with activities. Health-related work disability should include at a minimum a measure of work status and work-time loss. For those who are still at work, new measures are being developed to measure health-related work limitations. No single measure of patient satisfaction is clearly preferred but guiding principles are provided to choose among available measures. In addition to the five recommended domains, preference-based health outcome measures, including patients utilities, may be useful when there is a need to value alternative health outcomes.     

Use of a subjective health measure on Chinese low back pain patients in Hong Kong.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective observational study on the use of the Aberdeen Low Back Pain Disability Scale. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Chinese adaptation of the Aberdeen Low Back Pain Scale in Chinese patients in Hong Kong who have back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Frontline clinicians, researchers, and health care managers in Hong Kong are urgently in need of a Chinese adaptation of a low back pain outcome measure that has been subjected to a rigorous process of psychometric and clinical testing. METHODS: Four samples with 473 consecutive adult patients with low back pain from six physiotherapy outpatient departments in Hong Kong who completed the Aberdeen Low Back Pain Scale were observed and measured at time points including the beginning physiotherapy; 10 days, 3 weeks, and 6 weeks after physiotherapy; and when discharged from treatment. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.94 (0.94 in the original English version; figures from the English version are reported in parentheses). The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.85 (0.80). The Spearman correlation coefficient, when the Aberdeen score was correlated with that of a generic current 42-item questionnaire regarding the patient's perceived health to establish cross-sectional construct validity, was 0.59 (0.36-0.66, with the Short Form 36 scale). The effect sizes (responsiveness) at weeks 3 and 6 after treatment began were 0.59 and 0.81, respectively (a high of 0.62 reported in the English version). CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of the Aberdeen Low Back Pain Disability Scale retained the high levels of reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the original English version when tested in Hong Kong in four samples of Chinese patients with low back pain.     

Sensibilité au changement de trois questionnaires d’évaluation des cervicalgies

Objective. – To assess the sensitivity to change of three algo-functional scales for neck pain.Methods. – Observational, prospective study. Patients with neck disorders were included. Pain and patients’ perceived handicap were assessed on visual analog scales (VAS Pain, VAS Handicap), and functional disability measures (Neck Disability Index, Neck Pain and Disability Scale, Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire) were recorded twice, at baseline and at an 11-months follow-up assessment. Sensitivity to change was assessed using the effect size (ES) and the standardised response mean (SRM), and the non parametric Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r) was used to assess the correlation between quantitative variable changes and patients’ overall opinion. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a Tukey test were performed to determine if the scales distinguished improved, stable, and deteriorated patients.Results. – Seventy-one patients (43 women, mean age 49 years) were included and evaluated twice at an interval of 11 ± 2 months. The three scales showed good sensitivity to change. The ANOVA showed a group effect, and individual changes in the scales scores were statistically different in two-by-two comparisons (improved, stable or deteriorated patients). Changes in NPDS scores had the highest correlation with patient’s overall assessment (r = 0.592).Conclusion. – The three scales can detect changes in patients with neck disorders. Changes in NPDS score had the best correlation with patients’ overall opinion concerning their neck disorder and this questionnaire should be given preference in clinical trials.     

Neck and back pain specific outcome assessment questionnaires in the Spanish language: a systematic literature review

Background contextAccurate measurement of functional improvement in clinical practice is becoming increasingly recognized as essential in demonstrating whether patients are deriving meaningful benefit from care. Several simple questionnaires have been developed for this purpose. The majority of these have been developed in English. In North America, there is a growing need for clinical tools, including outcome assessment tools that are available in the Spanish language.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding spine-specific outcome assessment questionnaires that are available in Spanish and to examine the evidence on their clinical utility.Study designSystematic review.MethodsThe Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and MANTIS databases were searched for any studies on the topic of outcome assessment questionnaires in the Spanish language. Relevant articles were reviewed, and the data on reliability, validity, time to completion, and any other properties of the questionnaire was extracted.ResultsThe search strategy identified 287 articles, of which 10 were deemed relevant. With regard to neck pain, data were found regarding Spanish translations of the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Core Outcome Measure for neck pain. With regard to low back pain, data were found regarding Spanish translations of the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), and the North American Spine Society—American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons questionnaire.ConclusionsSeveral reliable and valid outcome assessment questionnaires are available in the Spanish language. All were originally developed in English. It appears from the data reviewed that the most useful instruments are the NDI for neck pain patients and the ODI and RMQ for low back pain patients. The current trend is for the development of culturally adapted versions of these questionnaires that are specific to a particular country or region.     

The effect of psychosocial measures of resilience and self-efficacy in patients with neck and lower back pain

Background Context

Psychosocial risk factors may predispose to progression of back and neck pain to chronic pain or disability. Resilience (the ability to recover from stress) and pain self-efficacy (confidence that one can perform daily activities despite pain) are important psychometric properties shown to affect health and illness.

Low back pain: critical assessment of various scales

To study the various pain assessment tools based on their psychometric properties and ease of use. Published articles on psychometric properties of pain tools were accessed and data collected for low back pain (LBP)-specific tools, generic tools, neuropathic LBP tools, tools for cognitively impaired patients, and tools for acute LBP. Among the LBP-specific tools, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) have good construct validity and reliability, and responsiveness over short intervals. Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) gauges only disability and sleep. Among the generic tools, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) show good responsiveness, but BPI is the only tool validated for LBP. Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) and Short Form-MPQ-2 (SF-MPQ-2) are both reliable tools for neuropathic LBP. For cognitively impaired patients, Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), Abbey Pain Scale (APS), and Doloplus-2 are all reliable tools, but PAINAD has good construct validity. For acute pain, Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA) is reliable and responsive, but presently, unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 are the tools most preferred. Based on psychometric properties and ease of use, the best tools for LBP seem to be RMDQ/ODI (among LBP-specific tools), BPI (among generic tools), SF-MPQ-2/NPS (for neuropathic LBP), PAINAD (for cognitively impaired patients), and unidimensional tools and SF-MPQ-2 (for acute pain). Overall, BPI seems to be a tool that can be relied upon the most. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.     

Measuring participation in patients with chronic back pain—the 5-Item Pain Disability Index

Background Context

Of the three broad outcome domains of body functions and structures, activities, and participation (eg, engaging in valued social roles) outlined in the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), it has been argued that participation is the most important to individuals, particularly those with chronic health problems. Yet, participation is not commonly measured in back pain research.

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.     

Translation of the Neck Disability Index and validation of the Greek version in a sample of neck pain patients

Background  

Neck pain is a highly prevalent condition resulting in major disability. Standard scales for measuring disability in patients with neck pain have a pivotal role in research and clinical settings. The Neck Disability Index (NDI) is a valid and reliable tool, designed to measure disability in activities of daily living due to neck pain. The purpose of our study was the translation and validation of the NDI in a Greek primary care population with neck complaints.     

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:     

Neck Pain and Disability Scale and Neck Disability Index: validity of Dutch language versions

Purpose  

To investigate the validity of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale Dutch Language Version (NPAD-DLV) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI)-DLV.