Literature DB >> 24272267

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the core outcome measures index (COMI) for the neck.

Marco Monticone1, Simona Ferrante, Serena Maggioni, Gisel Grenat, Giovanni A Checchia, Marco Testa, Marco G Teli, Anne F Mannion.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a cross-culturally adapted questionnaire, the Core Outcome Measurement Index for neck pain (COMI-neck).
METHODS: The COMI-neck was cross-culturally adapted for the Italian language using established procedures. The following psychometric properties of the instrument were then assessed in patients with chronic neck pain undergoing rehabilitation: test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC); construct validity by comparing COMI-neck with the Neck Pain and Disability Scale, a numerical pain rating scale, and the EuroQol-Five Dimension (Pearson's correlations); and responsiveness by means of Standardized Response Mean (SRM), unpaired t tests, and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 103 subjects. The COMI-neck summary score displayed no relevant floor or ceiling effects. Test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.87). With one exception (symptom-specific well-being), the individual COMI items and the COMI summary score correlated to the expected extent with the scores of the reference questionnaires (r = 0.40-0.80). The mean change scores for the Italian COMI-neck differed significantly between patients with a good global outcome and those with a poor outcome (p = 0.002); SRM for the good outcome group was 1.23, and for the poor outcome group 0.40. ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.62-0.85).
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that the Italian version of the COMI-neck is a valid and responsive questionnaire in the population of patients examined. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24272267      PMCID: PMC3960414          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-3092-y

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


  25 in total

Review 1.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  A taxonomy for responsiveness.

Authors:  D E Beaton; C Bombardier; J N Katz; J G Wright
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use.

Authors:  R A Deyo; M Battie; A J Beurskens; C Bombardier; P Croft; B Koes; A Malmivaara; M Roland; M Von Korff; G Waddell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Measurement of pain.

Authors:  E C Huskisson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1974-11-09       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 5.  Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine.

Authors:  M H Zweig; G Campbell
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 8.327

6.  Development of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale. Item analysis, face, and criterion-related validity.

Authors:  A H Wheeler; P Goolkasian; A C Baird; B V Darden
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index.

Authors:  A F Mannion; M Boneschi; M Teli; A Luca; F Zaina; S Negrini; P J Schulz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  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

9.  Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status.

Authors:  L E Kazis; J J Anderson; R F Meenan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  What is the value of social values? The uselessness of assessing health-related quality of life through preference measures.

Authors:  Luis Prieto; José A Sacristán
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2004-04-29       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  9 in total

1.  The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a responsive instrument for assessing the outcome of treatment for adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  A F Mannion; A Vila-Casademunt; M Domingo-Sàbat; S Wunderlin; F Pellisé; J Bago; E Acaroglu; A Alanay; F S Pérez-Grueso; I Obeid; F S Kleinstück
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Development of the Italian version of the modified Japanese orthopaedic association score (mJOA-IT): cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, validity and responsiveness.

Authors:  Umile Giuseppe Longo; Alessandra Berton; Luca Denaro; Giuseppe Salvatore; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Is the duration of pre-operative conservative treatment associated with the clinical outcome following surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis? A study based on the Spine Tango Registry.

Authors:  Thomas Zweig; Juliane Enke; Anne F Mannion; Rolf Sobottke; Markus Melloh; Brian J C Freeman; Emin Aghayev
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Assessing equity and quality indicators for older people - Adaptation and validation of the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) checklist for the Portuguese care context.

Authors:  Adriana Taveira; Ana Paula Macedo; Nazaré Rego; José Crispim
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 4.070

5.  Validity of the Japanese core outcome measures index (COMI)-neck for cervical spine surgery: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Yasushi Oshima; Kosei Nagata; Hideki Nakamoto; Ryuji Sakamoto; Yujiro Takeshita; Nozomu Ohtomo; Naohiro Kawamura; Masaaki Iizuka; Takashi Ono; Koji Nakajima; Akiro Higashikawa; Takahiko Yoshimoto; Tomoko Fujii; Sakae Tanaka; Hiroyuki Oka; Ko Matsudaira
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Influence of previous surgery on patient-rated outcome after surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Pascal Zehnder; Emin Aghayev; Tamas F Fekete; Daniel Haschtmann; Tim Pigott; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Patient-reported outcome measures for non-specific neck pain validated in the Italian-language: a systematic review.

Authors:  Leonardo Pellicciari; Francesca Bonetti; Damiano Di Foggia; Mauro Monesi; Stefano Vercelli
Journal:  Arch Physiother       Date:  2016-07-22

8.  Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Dutch Version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the Neck in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Degenerative Disease of the Cervical Spine.

Authors:  Pravesh S Gadjradj; Timothy C Chin-See-Chong; Daphne Donk; Paul Depauw; Maurits W van Tulder; Biswadjiet S Harhangi
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2021-12-31

9.  Responsiveness and minimal important change for the ProFitMap-neck questionnaire and the Neck Disability Index in women with neck-shoulder pain.

Authors:  Martin Björklund; Birgitta Wiitavaara; Marina Heiden
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 4.147

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.