Literature DB >> 15856340

Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 2: sensitivity to change after spinal surgery.

A F Mannion1, A Junge, D Grob, J Dvorak, J C T Fairbank.   

Abstract

When functional scales are to be used as treatment outcome measures, it is essential to know how responsive they are to clinical change. This information is essential not only for clinical decision-making, but also for the determination of sample size in clinical trials. The present study examined the responsiveness of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1 (ODI) after surgical treatment for low back pain. Before spine surgery 63 patients completed a questionnaire booklet containing the 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. Six months after surgery, 57 (90%) patients completed the same questionnaire booklet and also answered Likert-scale questions on the global result of surgery, and on improvements in pain and disability. Both the effect size for the ODI change score 6 months after surgery (0.87) and the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the relative improvement in ODI score in relation to global outcome 6 months after surgery (0.90) indicated that the ODI showed good responsiveness. The ROC method revealed that a minimum reduction of the baseline (pre-surgery) ODI score by 18% (equal to a mean 8-point reduction in this patient group) represented the cut-off for indicating a "good" individual outcome 6 months after surgery (sensitivity 91.4% and specificity 82.4%). The German version of the ODI is a sensitive instrument for detecting clinical change after spinal surgery. Individual improvements after surgery of at least an 18% reduction on baseline values are associated with a good outcome. This figure can be used as a reliable guide for the determination of sample size in future clinical trials of spinal surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15856340      PMCID: PMC3454560          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-004-0816-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  29 in total

Review 1.  The Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; P B Pynsent
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science.

Authors:  W G Hopkins
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation.

Authors:  R A Deyo; P Diehr; D L Patrick
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1991-08

4.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance.

Authors:  R A Deyo; R M Centor
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1986

5.  A methodological framework for assessing health indices.

Authors:  B Kirshner; G Guyatt
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1985

Review 6.  Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines.

Authors:  F Guillemin; C Bombardier; D Beaton
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic plots.

Authors:  D G Altman; J M Bland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-07-16

8.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.

Authors:  A J H M Beurskens; H C W de Vet; A J A Köke
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 10.  Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires.

Authors:  A J Beurskens; H C de Vet; A J Köke; G J van der Heijden; P G Knipschild
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  40 in total

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

Authors:  Chao Ma; Shaoling Wu; Lingjun Xiao; Yunlian Xue
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Clinical outcomes of patients with lumbar disc herniation, selected for one-level open-discectomy and microdiscectomy.

Authors:  Kotryna Veresciagina; Bronius Spakauskas; Kazys Vytautas Ambrozaitis
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  [Chronic low back pain : Comparison of mobilization and core stability exercises].

Authors:  M Alfuth; D Cornely
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observational cohort.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Brett Hanscom; Anna N A Tosteson; Harry Herkowitz; Jeffrey Fischgrund; Frank P Cammisa; Todd Albert; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Discriminative validity and responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index among Japanese outpatients with lumbar conditions.

Authors:  Hideki Hashimoto; Masahi Komagata; Osamu Nakai; Masutaro Morishita; Yasuaki Tokuhashi; Shigeo Sano; Yutaka Nohara; Yukikazu Okajima
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-02-14       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Comparison of a minimally invasive procedure versus standard microscopic discotomy: a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Jörg Franke; R Greiner-Perth; H Boehm; K Mahlfeld; H Grasshoff; Y Allam; F Awiszus
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-10       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Patient-based outcomes for the operative treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  Samo K Fokter; Scott A Yerby
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  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.

Authors:  Henrik Hein Lauridsen; Jan Hartvigsen; Claus Manniche; Lars Korsholm; Niels Grunnet-Nilsson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-05-31       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.

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

10.  Combined posterior-anterior stabilisation of thoracolumbar injuries utilising a vertebral body replacing implant.

Authors:  Christian Knop; T Kranabetter; M Reinhold; M Blauth
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-09       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.