Literature DB >> 25663644

Responsiveness and minimal important changes for the Neck Disability Index and the Neck Pain Disability Scale in Italian subjects with chronic neck pain.

Marco Monticone1, Emilia Ambrosini2,3, Howard Vernon4, Roberto Brunati2, Barbara Rocca2, Calogero Foti5, Simona Ferrante3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the responsiveness and minimal important changes (MICs) for the Italian Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Neck Pain Disability Scale (NPDS) as well as which questionnaire was the most responsive in subjects with chronic neck pain (NP).
METHODS: At the beginning and end of an 8-week rehabilitation programme, 200 patients completed the NDI and NPDS. After the programme, the global perceived effect (GPE) was also evaluated and collapsed to produce a dichotomous outcome (improved vs. stable). Responsiveness was calculated by distribution [effect size (ES); standardised response mean (SRM)] and anchor-based methods (ROC curves; correlations between change scores of NPDS and NDI, and GPE). ROC curves were also used to compute the best cutoff levels between improved and stable subjects (MICs).
RESULTS: The ES was 0.66 and 0.73, and the SRM was 1.09-1.26 for the NDI and NPDS, respectively. The ROC analyses revealed AUCs of 0.96 and 0.91 for the NDI and NPDS, respectively; the MICs were 7-percentage points for the NDI (sensitivity: 98%; specificity: 81%) and 10 for NPDS (93; 83%), showing equivalent responsiveness properties. Baseline NPDS scores did not affect MIC estimate for the NPDS, while, for the NDI, higher MICs were found for patients with worst disability levels. Correlations between change scores of the NDI and NPDS and GPE were, respectively, high (0.71) and moderate (0.59).
CONCLUSIONS: The Italian NDI and NPDS were equally sensitive in detecting clinical changes in subjects with chronic NP undergoing rehabilitation. We recommend taking the MICs into account when assessing patient improvement or planning studies in this clinical context.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic neck pain; Minimal important changes; NDI; NPDS; Responsiveness

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25663644     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-3785-5

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


  27 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.  Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain.

Authors:  Jan J M Pool; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Jan L Hoving; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  A randomized clinical trial of exercise and spinal manipulation for patients with chronic neck pain.

Authors:  G Bronfort; R Evans; B Nelson; P D Aker; C H Goldsmith; H Vernon
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Chronic neck pain and treatment of cognitive and behavioural factors: results of a randomised controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Marco Monticone; Paola Baiardi; Carla Vanti; Silvano Ferrari; Tiziana Nava; Catia Montironi; Barbara Rocca; Calogero Foti; Marco Teli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-01       Impact factor: 3.134

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.  Manual therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by a general practitioner for patients with neck pain. A randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Jan Lucas Hoving; Bart W Koes; Henrica C W de Vet; Danielle A W M van der Windt; Willem J J Assendelft; Henk van Mameren; Walter L J M Devillé; Jan J M Pool; Rob J P M Scholten; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-05-21       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  The neck pain and disability scale: test-retest reliability and construct validity.

Authors:  Paula Goolkasian; Anthony H Wheeler; Stephanie S Gretz
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.442

9.  Responsiveness of the Neck Disability Index in patients with mechanical neck disorders.

Authors:  Brian A Young; Michael J Walker; Joseph B Strunce; Robert E Boyles; Julie M Whitman; John D Childs
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2009-07-25       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity.

Authors:  H Vernon; S Mior
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 1.437

View more
  7 in total

1.  Responsiveness of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia in Italian subjects with chronic low back pain undergoing motor and cognitive rehabilitation.

Authors:  Marco Monticone; Emilia Ambrosini; Barbara Rocca; Calogero Foti; Simona Ferrante
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Effectiveness of multimodal exercises integrated with cognitive-behavioral therapy in working patients with chronic neck pain: protocol of a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.

Authors:  M Monticone; S Simone Vullo; L I Lecca; F Meloni; I Portoghese; M Campagna
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-05-21       Impact factor: 2.728

Review 3.  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

4.  Psychometric properties of the global rating of change scales in patients with neck disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Authors:  Pavlos Bobos; Joy MacDermid; Goris Nazari; Rochelle Furtado
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Responsiveness of the German version of the Neck Disability Index in chronic neck pain patients: a prospective cohort study with a seven-week follow-up.

Authors:  Anke Langenfeld; Antonia Pia Gassner; Brigitte Wirth; Malin Beth Mühlemann; Luana Nyirö; Caroline Bastiaenen; Jaap Swanenburg
Journal:  Arch Physiother       Date:  2022-10-17

6.  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

7.  Assessment of the responsiveness of four scales in geriatric patients with chronic neck pain.

Authors:  Mazlum Serdar Akaltun; Burhan Fatih Kocyigit
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2021-07-23       Impact factor: 2.631

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.