Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is one of the most widely used questionnaires that assess disability in patients with low back pain (LBP). Responsiveness is both an important psychometric property of an instrument and a key issue for clinicians when choosing suitable outcome measures. The objective of this study was to examine the responsiveness of the Chinese version of the ODI (ODI-Chinese) for subjects with chronic LBP following a physical therapy program. In total, 76 patients with chronic LBP completed the ODI-Chinese, a visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, and the Chinese version of Short Form-36 (SF-36) before and after treatment. All patients also completed a global perception of change Likert scale in condition after the program. The scale was collapsed to produce a dichotomous variable outcome, improved or non-improved. The responsiveness of the instruments was determined using the standardized response means (SRM) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC). After treatment, 56 patients considered themselves to be improved. The SRM of the ODI-Chinese was −1.2 in the improved group and −0.4 in the non-improved group. The area of the ROC curve for the ODI-Chinese was 0.77 (95% CI 0.66–0.89). Therefore, the Chinese version of the ODI is both responsive and appropriate for use in chronic LBP patients after conservative therapy.     

肌肉衰减综合征对运动治疗老年慢性腰痛患者最小临床重要差异的影响

目的 探讨肌肉衰减综合征对老年慢性腰痛(chronic low back pain,CLBP)接受运动治疗后最小临床重要差异的影响.方法 选择2018年7月～2020年6月在本院就诊的163例CLBP患者作为研究对象,均给予运动疗法治疗,干预时间2个月.观察患者肌肉衰减综合征的发生率和治疗后疼痛VAS评分、功能障碍评分...     

Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study assessing the responsiveness of two disease-specific questionnaires and a generic health questionnaire for patients with low back pain and sciatica. OBJECTIVES: To compare the responsiveness of the eight scales and two summery scales of the SF-36 questionnaire with that of the Oswestry Disability Index and Low Back Outcome Score questionnaires. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evaluation of treatment outcome is being determined more frequently from a patient's perspective, particularly the impact treatment has on current health status. METHODS: Patients were recruited from two orthopedic back pain clinics in a tertiary hospital. Patients completed the pretreatment questionnaire 1 month before treatment and follow-up questionnaires a minimum of 2-6 months after treatment. Patients undergoing surgery were also observed for a minimum of 2 years. RESULTS: Overall, the Oswestry Disability Index was most responsive; however, individual scales from the SF-36 questionnaire showed equal or greater sensitivity to change than the Oswestry Disability Index in each of the patient subgroups. The SF-36 Role Physical scale was prone to floor effects (a high percentage of respondents score zero), and the change scores from the SF-36 Role Emotional scale varied by 100 points in either direction in each of the patient subgroups. CONCLUSION: Responsiveness varied according to which method was used in its calculation. The responsiveness of the SF-36 questionnaire shows that it can be a useful adjunct in the assessment of patients with low back pain when combined with disease-specific questionnaires.     

Predictors of low back pain disability

Low back pain has major socioeconomic implications; much of the costs relate to disability and compensation. Theoretically, the early identification of patients at risk to become disabled from a low back episode would lead to more aggressive intervention and reduction of subsequent disability. Low back disability is related to occupational, psychosocial, diagnostic, demographic, anthropometric, health behavior, and injury factors that have been reported in the literature. The multiattribute utility model is a new experimental approach to prediction of disability. The relative weights of the various factors that might be predictive of low back disability are determined by a panel of experts. Although this model is not yet scientifically proven, it offers a promising method of answering the question, "Can low back disability be predicted?"     

Danish version of the Oswestry disability index for patients with low back pain. Part 2: Sensitivity, specificity and clinically significant improvement in two low back pain populations

In studies evaluating the efficacy of clinical interventions, it is of paramount importance that the functional outcome measures are responsive to clinically relevant change. Knowledge thereof is in fact essential for the choice of instrument in clinical trials and for clinical decision-making. This article endeavours to investigate the sensitivity, specificity and clinically significant improvement (responsiveness) of the Danish version of the Oswestry disability index (ODI) in two back pain populations. Two hundred and thirty three patients with low back pain (LBP) and/or leg pain completed a questionnaire booklet at baseline and 8 weeks follow-up. Half of the patients were seen in the primary (PrS) and half in the secondary sectors (SeS) of the Danish Health Care System. The booklet contained the Danish version of the ODI, along with the Roland Morris Questionnaire, the LBP Rating Scale, the SF36 (physical function and bodily pain scales) and a global pain rating. At follow-up, a 7-point transition question (TQ) of patient perceived change and a numeric rating scale relating to the importance of the change were included. Responsiveness was operationalised using three strategies: change scores, standardised response means (SRM) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. All methods revealed acceptable responsiveness of the ODI in the two patient populations which was comparable to the external instruments. SRM of the ODI change scores at 2 months follow-up was 1.0 for PrS patients and 0.3 for SeS (raw and percentage). A minimum clinically important change (MCID) from baseline score was established at 9 points (71%) for PrS patients and 8 points (27%) for SeS patients using ROC analyses. This was dependable on the baseline entry score with the MCID increasing with 5 points for every 10 points increase in the baseline score. We conclude that the Danish version of the ODI has comparable responsiveness to other commonly used functional status measures and is appropriate for use in low back pain patients receiving conservative care in both the primary and secondary sector.     

Validation of the LOCOMO-25 and its minimum clinically important differences in domain scores for Chinese patients with low back pain and neck pain

BackgroundThe 25-question Geriatric Locomotive Function Scale (LOCOMO-25) was developed to assess any decline in mobility functions. This study aims to validate the LOCOMO-25 in Chinese patients with chronic low back pain and/or neck pain.MethodsAdult patients with chronic low back pain and/or neck pain completed the LOCOMO-25, SF-36, EQ-5D-5L, ODI, VAS and/or NDI. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α). Test-retest reliability was assessed by intra-class correlation coefficients. Construct validity was assessed by Spearman correlation tests against other outcome measures. Sensitivity to detect differences between groups was assessed by Mann–Whitney U or Kruskal–Wallis H test, where appropriate. Intergroup comparison was performed further in terms of domain scores and their changes at test-retest.ResultsA total of 111 patients were consecutively recruited. LOCOMO-25 demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.915) and test-retest reliability (Intraclass correlation: 0.705 to 0.826). LOCOMO-25 was significantly correlated with all domains of SF-36, EQ-5D, ODI, NDI, and VAS (p < 0.01). It was found to be sensitive in differentiating between patients with neural compression (32.8 ± 16.9) and without (21.2 ± 12.7), with history of fall(s) within the previous one year (30.8 ± 16.0) and without (24.2 ± 15.1), requires assistive devices for ambulation (40.6 ± 21.6) or independent (23.6 ± 13.1) and various pain levels (mild: 17.2 ± 10.6; moderate: 23.5 ± 11.7; severe: 38.5 ± 16.5). Patients with neural compression scored significantly higher in the domain of pain and patients requiring assistive devices for ambulation scored significantly higher in the domains of ADL and social functions. The minimum detectable differences for various domains of the LOCOMO-25 score included pain (2.76), activities of daily living (6.07), social function (1.59), and mental health status (2.06).ConclusionsLOCOMO-25 has been validated in Chinese patients with chronic low back and neck pain with satisfactory psychometric properties, and with individual domain minimum clinically important differences. There is adequate internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity and sensitivity to detect differences between patients with/without neural compression, different ambulatory statuses and pain severity.     

Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum?

Background ContextVarious methodologies have been used in attempting to elucidate a standard method for calculating minimal clinically important difference (MCID). A consensus-based decision (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials [IMMPACT] group) suggested a 30% reduction from baseline as a means to define the MCID of self-report back pain measures. Additionally, important psychometric issues need to be addressed regarding use of an independent measure of the same construct as an external criterion, instead of simply using another self-report measure, when using an anchor-based approach to MCID.PurposeThe purpose was to test the validity of recently published guidelines regarding MCID using self-report back pain measures and objective socioeconomic outcomes.Study Design/SettingThis is a prospective study assessing change scores on commonly used spinal pain assessment measures in patients with chronic disabling occupational spinal disorders (CDOSDs) treated in a regional referral rehabilitation center performing interdisciplinary functional restoration.Patient SampleThe study consisted of consecutive cohort of patients (N=1,180) with CDOSDs completing a functional restoration program.Outcomes MeasuresSelf-report measures including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) obtained before and after treatment, were compared with objective socioeconomically relevant outcomes obtained 1 year after treatment (ie, work status and additional health-care utilization), that were the external criteria for evaluating MCID.MethodsPre- to posttreatment improvement was calculated separately for each measure, and subjects were divided into two groups based on the change in scores relative to baseline: 30% or greater versus less than 30% improvement. One-year posttreatment objective socioeconomic outcomes were used as independent external criteria relevant to the CDOSD population. This population is often studied as the most costly and problematic cohort in spine care.ResultsThe ODI and SF-36 MCS were not associated with any of the objective 1-year outcomes used as external criteria. Reduced post-rehabilitation health-care utilization (based on the percentage of patients pursuing health care from a new provider) was weakly associated with 30% or greater improvement on the SF-36 PCS, relative to patients whose scores changed by less than 30% relative to baseline (17.0% vs. 21.1%). The same was true for the ODI and return-to-work.ConclusionsWhen objective and independent criteria are used (socioeconomic outcomes) in a CDOSD cohort, the 30% improvement in the ODI and SF-36 may not be a valid MCID index. This replicates similar conclusions made by an independent research group using a distribution-based approach to MCID. The validity of the MCID concept rests on future research using objective external criteria. Moreover, there remains a question whether the term “important” in MCID can be unequivocally and operationally defined as a reliable construct.     

Predicting disability from low back pain.

Since World War II, the incidence of chronic low back disability has increased dramatically, at a rate disproportionate to all other health conditions. The factors that contribute to this disability are reviewed. Psychosocial and work environmental factors are far more accurate predictors of disability than physical factors. A predictive risk model is described that allows an estimate of the patient's risk of becoming chronically disabled early in the course of a low back pain episode. This model demonstrates that work environment, perception of compensability, and the duration of the current episode are significantly predictors. Surprisingly, psychologic factors, as measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), are not predictive in the cohorts studied to date. Although there are inherent limitations in study design, the results offer additional credence to the hypothesis that low back pain disability is often the result of psychosocial and work environmental factors. The model may also be used to address the hypothesis that patients at risk for future disability are more effectively treated by early, aggressive rehabilitation programs.     

Item response theory analysis to evaluate reliability and minimal clinically important change of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire in patients with severe disability due to back pain from vertebral compression fractures

Background Context

The majority of validation done on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) has been in patients with mild or moderate disability. There is paucity of research focusing on the psychometric quality of the RMDQ in patients with severe disability.