Min Yao1,2, Bao-Ping Xu1,3, Zhen-Jun Li1,4, Sen Zhu1,5, Zi-Rui Tian1,2, De-Hua Li6, Jue Cen6, Shao-Dan Cheng6, Yong-Jun Wang1,2, Yan-Ming Guo7, Xue-Jun Cui8,9. 1. Spine Disease Institute, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 725 South Wanping Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Theory and Therapy of Muscles and Bones, Ministry of Education, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 725 South Wanping Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. 3. Lu'an Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 76 Renmin Road, Anhui Lu'an, 237000, China. 4. Gansu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 418 Guazhou Road, Lanzhou, 730050, Gansu, China. 5. Department of Orthopaedic, Shanghai Pudong Gongli Hospital, Second Military Medical University, 219 Miaopu Road, Shanghai, 200013, China. 6. Shanghai Guanghua Hospital, 540 Xinhua Road, Shanghai, 200052, China. 7. Shanghai Guanghua Hospital, 540 Xinhua Road, Shanghai, 200052, China. guoym1218@163.com. 8. Spine Disease Institute, Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 725 South Wanping Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. 13917715524@139.com. 9. Key Laboratory of Theory and Therapy of Muscles and Bones, Ministry of Education, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 725 South Wanping Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. 13917715524@139.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) has shown a preferable psychometric properties in patients with low back pain (LBP), but no study has yet determined these in conservative treatment of patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Thus the current study aimed to compare those scales in LDH patients receiving conservative treatment to select the better option to assess the severity of disease. METHODS: LDH patients were invited to complete the JOABPEQ, NPRS, ODI, RMDQ, and SF-36 twice. The internal consistency was evaluated by the Cronbach's α. Test-retest reliability was tested by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The relationships of these scales were evaluated by the Pearson correlation coefficients (r). The responsiveness was operationalised using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, as well as the comparison of smallest detectable change (SDC), minimum important change (MIC). RESULTS: A total of 353 LDH patients were enrolled. Four subscales of the Chinese JOABPEQ were over 0.70, then the ICCs for the test-retest reliability were over 0.75. For functional status, remarked negative correlations could be seen between JOABPEQ Q2-Q4 and ODI, as well as RMDQ (r = - 0.634 to - 0.752). For general health status, remarkable positive correlations could also be seen between Q5 Mental health and SF-36 PCS (r = 0.724) as well as SF-36 MCS (r = 0.736). Besides, the area under of the curves (AUC) of the JOABPEQ ranged from 0.743 to 0.827, indicating acceptale responsiveness, as well as the NPRS, ODI, and RMDQ. CONCLUSION: NPRS, and ODI or RMDQ is recommended in studies related to LDH patients, while if the quality of life also is needed to observe, the NPRS, and JOABPEQ would be more appropriate rather than SF-36.
BACKGROUND: Although the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) has shown a preferable psychometric properties in patients with low back pain (LBP), but no study has yet determined these in conservative treatment of patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Thus the current study aimed to compare those scales in LDH patients receiving conservative treatment to select the better option to assess the severity of disease. METHODS: LDH patients were invited to complete the JOABPEQ, NPRS, ODI, RMDQ, and SF-36 twice. The internal consistency was evaluated by the Cronbach's α. Test-retest reliability was tested by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The relationships of these scales were evaluated by the Pearson correlation coefficients (r). The responsiveness was operationalised using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, as well as the comparison of smallest detectable change (SDC), minimum important change (MIC). RESULTS: A total of 353 LDH patients were enrolled. Four subscales of the Chinese JOABPEQ were over 0.70, then the ICCs for the test-retest reliability were over 0.75. For functional status, remarked negative correlations could be seen between JOABPEQ Q2-Q4 and ODI, as well as RMDQ (r = - 0.634 to - 0.752). For general health status, remarkable positive correlations could also be seen between Q5 Mental health and SF-36 PCS (r = 0.724) as well as SF-36 MCS (r = 0.736). Besides, the area under of the curves (AUC) of the JOABPEQ ranged from 0.743 to 0.827, indicating acceptale responsiveness, as well as the NPRS, ODI, and RMDQ. CONCLUSION: NPRS, and ODI or RMDQ is recommended in studies related to LDH patients, while if the quality of life also is needed to observe, the NPRS, and JOABPEQ would be more appropriate rather than SF-36.
Entities:
Keywords:
Low Back pain; Lumbar disc herniation; Minimal clinically important difference; Minimal detectable change; Responsiveness
Authors: Melina N Haik; Francisco Alburquerque-Sendín; Ricardo A S Fernandes; Danilo H Kamonseki; Lucas A Almeida; Richard E Liebano; Paula R Camargo Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2020-11-10