Literature DB >> 15856341

Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity.

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

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15856341      PMCID: PMC3454571          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-004-0815-0

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


  32 in total

Review 1.  Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness.

Authors:  D E Beaton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: validation.

Authors:  U Müller; M S Duetz; C Roeder; C G Greenough
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments.

Authors:  T V Perneger
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-04-18

Review 4.  Health status measures: an overview and guide for selection.

Authors:  M Bergner; M L Rothman
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 21.981

Review 5.  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

6.  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

7.  Measuring self-reported functional status and pain in patients with chronic low back pain by postal questionnaires: a reliability study.

Authors:  Inger Holm; Astrid Friis; Kjersti Storheim; Jens Ivar Brox
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties.

Authors:  J A Kopec; J M Esdaile; M Abrahamowicz; L Abenhaim; S Wood-Dauphinee; D L Lamping; J I Williams
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  EMG recovery and ratings after back extensor fatigue in patients with lumbar disc herniation and healthy subjects.

Authors:  Asa Dedering; Britt Elfving; Gunnar Németh
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2004-03-16       Impact factor: 3.078

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
  69 in total

1.  Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go?

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Achim Elfering; Ralph Staerkle; Astrid Junge; Dieter Grob; Norbert K Semmer; Nicola Jacobshagen; Jiri Dvorak; Norbert Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Does Capacitively Coupled Electric Fields Stimulation Improve Clinical Outcomes After Instrumented Spinal Fusion? A Multicentered Randomized, Prospective, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Leo Massari; Giovanni Barbanti Brodano; Stefania Setti; Gaetano Caruso; Enrico Gallazzi; Simona Salati; Marco Brayda-Bruno
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-01-20

6.  Validation of the Croatian version of the Oswestry Disability Index.

Authors:  Ivan Domazet; Jakob Nemir; Petra Barl; Krešimir Saša Đurić; Ivan Pašalić; Hrvoje Barić; Marin Stančić
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-09-08       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  The influence of isolated thoracoplasty on the evolution of pulmonary function after treatment of severe thoracic scoliosis.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Tobias L Schulte; Oliver Meier; Juliane Koller; Viola Bullmann; Wolfgang Hitzl; Michael Mayer; Tobias Lange; Jens Schmücker
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  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.

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.  Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the core outcome measures index for low back pain.

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

10.  Reliability and validity study on the Hungarian versions of the oswestry disability index and the Quebec back pain disability scale.

Authors:  Tamás Valasek; Peter Paul Varga; Zsolt Szövérfi; Michelle Kümin; Jeremy Fairbank; Aron Lazary
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.