Literature DB >> 16736202

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.

Henrik Hein Lauridsen1, Jan Hartvigsen, Claus Manniche, Lars Korsholm, Niels Grunnet-Nilsson.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16736202     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0128-6

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


  83 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

2.  Physical impairment index: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with acute low back pain.

Authors:  Julie M Fritz; Sara R Piva
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  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 4.  Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores.

Authors:  P W Stratford; J M Binkley; D L Riddle
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  1996-10

5.  Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure.

Authors:  D Fischer; A L Stewart; D A Bloch; K Lorig; D Laurent; H Holman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999 Sep 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  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

Review 7.  Interpretation of quality of life changes.

Authors:  E Lydick; R S Epstein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures.

Authors:  J T Farrar; R K Portenoy; J A Berlin; J L Kinman; B L Strom
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2000-12-01       Impact factor: 6.961

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

10.  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

View more
  17 in total

1.  Occupational advice to help people return to work following lower limb arthroplasty: the OPAL intervention mapping study.

Authors:  Paul Baker; Carol Coole; Avril Drummond; Sayeed Khan; Catriona McDaid; Catherine Hewitt; Lucksy Kottam; Sarah Ronaldson; Elizabeth Coleman; David A McDonald; Fiona Nouri; Melanie Narayanasamy; Iain McNamara; Judith Fitch; Louise Thomson; Gerry Richardson; Amar Rangan
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Responsiveness of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index in subjects with low back pain.

Authors:  Rodrigo A Coelho; Fabiano B Siqueira; Paulo H Ferreira; Manuela L Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-05-30       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  What is an acceptable outcome of treatment before it begins? Methodological considerations and implications for patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Henrik Hein Lauridsen; Claus Manniche; Lars Korsholm; Niels Grunnet-Nilsson; Jan Hartvigsen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-06-23       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Coordinated and tailored work rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation undertaken with workers on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders.

Authors:  Ute Bültmann; David Sherson; Jens Olsen; Carl Lysbeck Hansen; Thomas Lund; Jørgen Kilsgaard
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2009-01-24

5.  Adherence and characteristics of participants enrolled in a standardised programme of patient education and exercises for low back pain, GLA:D® Back - a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Inge Ris; Daniel Broholm; Jan Hartvigsen; Tonny Elmose Andersen; Alice Kongsted
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-05-22       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients.

Authors:  Henrik H Lauridsen; Jan Hartvigsen; Claus Manniche; Lars Korsholm; Niels Grunnet-Nilsson
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-10-25       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Measurement properties of the musculoskeletal health questionnaire (MSK-HQ): a between country comparison.

Authors:  David Høyrup Christiansen; Gareth McCray; Trine Nøhr Winding; Johan Hviid Andersen; Kent Jacob Nielsen; Sven Karstens; Jonathan C Hill
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  The psychometric profile of chiropractic patients in Norway and England: using and comparing the generic versions of the STarT Back 5-item screening tool and the Bournemouth Questionnaire.

Authors:  Pernille Irgens; Lise R Lothe; Ole Christian Kvammen; Jonathan Field; David Newell
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2013-11-23

9.  Effectiveness of implementing a best practice primary healthcare model for low back pain (BetterBack) compared with current routine care in the Swedish context: an internal pilot study informed protocol for an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 trial.

Authors:  Allan Abbott; Karin Schröder; Paul Enthoven; Per Nilsen; Birgitta Öberg
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  The effect of graded activity and pain education (GAPE): an early post-surgical rehabilitation programme after lumbar spinal fusion-study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Heidi Tegner; Bente Appel Esbensen; Marius Henriksen; Rachid Bech-Azeddine; Mari Lundberg; Louise Nielsen; Nanna Rolving
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.