Maria Orlando Edelen1, Anthony Rodriguez2, Patricia Herman2, Ron D Hays3. 1. RAND Corporation, Healthcare Division, Boston, MA. Electronic address: orlando@rand.org. 2. RAND Corporation, Healthcare Division, Boston, MA. 3. Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To link scores from 2 condition-specific measures for chronic low back pain (CLBP), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), to Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity scores. DESIGN: Ordinary least squares regression analyses of existing data to link the PROMIS scores with the ODI and RMDQ. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Samples of adults with CLBP (N=2279) obtained from the Center for Excellence in Research for Complementary and Integrative Health (CERC) Study (n=1677), the Assessment of Chiropractic Treatment for Low Back Pain and Smoking Cessation in Military Active Duty Personnel (ACT) (n=384), and the pain subsample of the PROMIS 1 Wave 2 Pain and Depression study (PROMIS 1 W2) (n=218). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity (CERC, ACT, and PROMIS 1 W2), ODI (CERC and PROMIS 1 W2), and RMDQ (ACT and PROMIS 1 W2). RESULTS: In predicting PROMIS scores, the ODI model R2 values ranged from 0.26-0.56 and the RMDQ model R2 values ranged from 0.13-0.50. ODI and RMDQ models were the least precise in predicting the PROMIS pain intensity score (R2 value range, 0.13-0.41) relative to the other PROMIS scores. Models with the 3 PROMIS scores as predictors yielded R2 values ranging from 0.64-0.68 and 0.46-0.58 for the ODI and RMDQ, respectively. Models using combined data from 2 studies (ie, PROMIS 1 W2 and ACT, or PROMIS 1 W2 and CERC) tended to be more precise than models using only a single study sample. CONCLUSIONS: Model results reported here can be used to translate PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity scores to and from the ODI and RMDQ. The empirical linkages can facilitate comparisons across CLBP interventions and broaden interpretation of study results.
OBJECTIVE: To link scores from 2 condition-specific measures for chronic low back pain (CLBP), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), to Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity scores. DESIGN: Ordinary least squares regression analyses of existing data to link the PROMIS scores with the ODI and RMDQ. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Samples of adults with CLBP (N=2279) obtained from the Center for Excellence in Research for Complementary and Integrative Health (CERC) Study (n=1677), the Assessment of Chiropractic Treatment for Low Back Pain and Smoking Cessation in Military Active Duty Personnel (ACT) (n=384), and the pain subsample of the PROMIS 1 Wave 2 Pain and Depression study (PROMIS 1 W2) (n=218). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity (CERC, ACT, and PROMIS 1 W2), ODI (CERC and PROMIS 1 W2), and RMDQ (ACT and PROMIS 1 W2). RESULTS: In predicting PROMIS scores, the ODI model R2 values ranged from 0.26-0.56 and the RMDQ model R2 values ranged from 0.13-0.50. ODI and RMDQ models were the least precise in predicting the PROMIS pain intensity score (R2 value range, 0.13-0.41) relative to the other PROMIS scores. Models with the 3 PROMIS scores as predictors yielded R2 values ranging from 0.64-0.68 and 0.46-0.58 for the ODI and RMDQ, respectively. Models using combined data from 2 studies (ie, PROMIS 1 W2 and ACT, or PROMIS 1 W2 and CERC) tended to be more precise than models using only a single study sample. CONCLUSIONS: Model results reported here can be used to translate PROMIS physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity scores to and from the ODI and RMDQ. The empirical linkages can facilitate comparisons across CLBP interventions and broaden interpretation of study results.
Authors: Richard A Deyo; Samuel F Dworkin; Dagmar Amtmann; Gunnar Andersson; David Borenstein; Eugene Carragee; John Carrino; Roger Chou; Karon Cook; Anthony DeLitto; Christine Goertz; Partap Khalsa; John Loeser; Sean Mackey; James Panagis; James Rainville; Tor Tosteson; Dennis Turk; Michael Von Korff; Debra K Weiner Journal: J Pain Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Steven J Kamper; Andreas T Apeldoorn; Alessandro Chiarotto; Rob J E M Smeets; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Jaime Guzman; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-09-02
Authors: Dagmar Amtmann; Karon F Cook; Mark P Jensen; Wen-Hung Chen; Seung Choi; Dennis Revicki; David Cella; Nan Rothrock; Francis Keefe; Leigh Callahan; Jin-Shei Lai Journal: Pain Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Christine M Goertz; Cynthia R Long; Robert D Vining; Katherine A Pohlman; Bridget Kane; Lance Corber; Joan Walter; Ian Coulter Journal: Trials Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Alexandra C Maschino; George Lewith; Hugh MacPherson; Nadine E Foster; Karen J Sherman; Claudia M Witt; Klaus Linde Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-10-22
Authors: Bonnie Bruce; James F Fries; Debbie Ambrosini; Bharathi Lingala; Barbara Gandek; Matthias Rose; John E Ware Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Richard L Skolasky; Stephen T Wegener; Rachel V Aaron; Patti Ephraim; Gerard Brennan; Tom Greene; Elizabeth Lane; Kate Minick; Adam W Hanley; Eric L Garland; Julie M Fritz Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 2.362