Peter White1, George Lewith, Phil Prescott. 1. Complementary Medicine Research Unit, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southhampton, United Kingdom. P.J.White@soton.ac.uk
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial were asked to complete various questionnaires, which were then compared to establish validity for a new neck pain questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: To validate a new and brief outcome measure for use with patients with mechanical neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck pain is a very common problem and one that clinicians will be required to treat with some regularity. In today's climate of evidence-based practice and the need to quantify and justify clinical intervention, a quick and easy method to evaluate progress is required. Such a measure has already been produced for those experiencing back pain, but as yet, there is no such measure for neck pain and this needs to be addressed. METHODS: The back pain measure was adapted to enable its use with patients with neck pain. Repeatability was assessed by using a 1-week test/retest on 104 patients who were enrolled in a neck pain trial. Validity was assessed by comparing the new questionnaire against other already well validated measures (i.e., the Neck Disability Index and a Visual Analogue Scale for pain) with 133 patients. RESULTS: The test/retest showed excellent repeatability with high intraclass correlations and P < 0.001 for each question tested. The Core Neck Pain Questionnaire also showed good validity, giving close agreement to the other comparison measures. CONCLUSION: The short Core Neck Pain Questionnaire has been demonstrated to be repeatable and valid as a brief outcome measure for use with patients with mechanical neck pain.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN:Patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial were asked to complete various questionnaires, which were then compared to establish validity for a new neck pain questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: To validate a new and brief outcome measure for use with patients with mechanical neck pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck pain is a very common problem and one that clinicians will be required to treat with some regularity. In today's climate of evidence-based practice and the need to quantify and justify clinical intervention, a quick and easy method to evaluate progress is required. Such a measure has already been produced for those experiencing back pain, but as yet, there is no such measure for neck pain and this needs to be addressed. METHODS: The back pain measure was adapted to enable its use with patients with neck pain. Repeatability was assessed by using a 1-week test/retest on 104 patients who were enrolled in a neck pain trial. Validity was assessed by comparing the new questionnaire against other already well validated measures (i.e., the Neck Disability Index and a Visual Analogue Scale for pain) with 133 patients. RESULTS: The test/retest showed excellent repeatability with high intraclass correlations and P < 0.001 for each question tested. The Core Neck Pain Questionnaire also showed good validity, giving close agreement to the other comparison measures. CONCLUSION: The short Core Neck Pain Questionnaire has been demonstrated to be repeatable and valid as a brief outcome measure for use with patients with mechanical neck pain.
Authors: L H F Damasceno; P A G Rocha; E S Barbosa; C A M Barros; F T Canto; H L A Defino; A F Mannion Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Grzegorz Miekisiak; Marta Kollataj; Jan Dobrogowski; Wojciech Kloc; Witold Libionka; Mariusz Banach; Dariusz Latka; Tomasz Sobolewski; Adam Sulewski; Andrzej Nowakowski; Grzegorz Kiwic; Adam Pala; Tomasz Potaczek Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: A F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Anne F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 3.134