Nicolas R Thompson1,2, Brittany R Lapin3,4, Michael P Steinmetz5,6,7, Edward C Benzel5, Irene L Katzan4. 1. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JJN3-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. thompsn@ccf.org. 2. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. thompsn@ccf.org. 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JJN3-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 4. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Center for Spine Health, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 7. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) is a commonly used tool to assess functioning of patients with low back pain (LBP). Recently, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was suggested as an alternative platform to assess LBP patient-reported health. We sought to map between the MDQ and PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) and Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) scales using multiple methods. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of LBP patients seen at Cleveland Clinic 11/14/18-12/11/19, T-scores from each PROMIS scale were mapped to MDQ total score individually and together. MDQ item and total scores were mapped to each PROMIS scale. Linear regression as well as linear and equipercentile equating were used. Split sample internal validation using root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and correlations were used to assess accuracy of mapping equations. RESULTS: 13585 patients completed the three scales. In the derivation cohort, average age was 59.0 (SD = 15.8); 53.3% female and 82.9% white. Average MDQ total, PROMIS-PF, and PROMIS-PI T-scores were 40.3 (SD = 19.0), 37.2 (SD = 7.6), and 62.9 (SD = 7.2), respectively. For estimating MDQ total scores, methods that used both PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI had closest estimated means, lowest RMSE and MAE, and highest correlations. For estimating each of PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI T-scores, the best performing method was equipercentile equating using the MDQ items. CONCLUSIONS: We created and internally validated maps between MDQ and PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI using linear regression, linear and equipercentile equating. Our equations can be used by researchers wishing to translate scores between these scales.
PURPOSE: The Modified Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (MDQ) is a commonly used tool to assess functioning of patients with low back pain (LBP). Recently, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was suggested as an alternative platform to assess LBP patient-reported health. We sought to map between the MDQ and PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) and Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) scales using multiple methods. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of LBP patients seen at Cleveland Clinic 11/14/18-12/11/19, T-scores from each PROMIS scale were mapped to MDQ total score individually and together. MDQ item and total scores were mapped to each PROMIS scale. Linear regression as well as linear and equipercentile equating were used. Split sample internal validation using root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and correlations were used to assess accuracy of mapping equations. RESULTS: 13585 patients completed the three scales. In the derivation cohort, average age was 59.0 (SD = 15.8); 53.3% female and 82.9% white. Average MDQ total, PROMIS-PF, and PROMIS-PI T-scores were 40.3 (SD = 19.0), 37.2 (SD = 7.6), and 62.9 (SD = 7.2), respectively. For estimating MDQ total scores, methods that used both PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI had closest estimated means, lowest RMSE and MAE, and highest correlations. For estimating each of PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI T-scores, the best performing method was equipercentile equating using the MDQ items. CONCLUSIONS: We created and internally validated maps between MDQ and PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI using linear regression, linear and equipercentile equating. Our equations can be used by researchers wishing to translate scores between these scales.
Authors: Jacquelyn S Pennings; Clinton J Devin; Inamullah Khan; Mohamad Bydon; Anthony L Asher; Kristin R Archer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Pain Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: L Shahgholi; K J Yost; R E Carter; J R Geske; C E Hagen; K K Amrami; F E Diehn; T J Kaufmann; J M Morris; N S Murthy; J T Wald; K R Thielen; D F Kallmes; T P Maus Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Alpesh A Patel; Shah-Nawaz M Dodwad; Barrett S Boody; Surabhi Bhatt; Jason W Savage; Wellington K Hsu; Nan E Rothrock Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Jeffrey J Hébert; Edward Abraham; Niels Wedderkopp; Erin Bigney; Eden Richardson; Mariah Darling; Hamilton Hall; Charles G Fisher; Y Raja Rampersaud; Kenneth C Thomas; W Bradley Jacobs; Michael Johnson; Jérôme Paquet; Najmedden Attabib; Peter Jarzem; Eugene K Wai; Parham Rasoulinejad; Henry Ahn; Andrew Nataraj; Alexandra Stratton; Neil Manson Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 3.241