nach oben

European Spine Journal

Erschienen in:

01.01.2006 | Review

Back related outcome assessment instruments

verfasst von: Urs Müller, Christoph Röder, Charles G. Greenough

Erschienen in: European Spine Journal | Sonderheft 1/2006

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

A literature review of the most widely used condition specific, self administered assessment questionnaires for low back pain had been undertaken. General and historic aspects, reliability, responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference, external validity, floor and ceiling effects, and available languages were analysed. These criteria, however, are only part of the consideration. Of similar importance are the content, wording of questions and answers in each of the six questionnaires and an analysis of the different score results. The issue of score bias is discussed and suggestions are given in order to increase the construct validity in the practical use of the individual questionnaires.

Baker D, Pynsent P, Fairbank J (1989) The Oswestry index revisited. In: Roland M, Jenner J (eds) Back pain: new approaches to rehabilitation and education. Manchester University Press, Manchester pp 174–186

Bigos SJ, Battie MC, Spengler DM, et al. (1991) A prospective study of work perceptions and psychosocial factors affecting the report of back injury. Spine 16(1):1–6PubMedCrossRef

Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 8:307–310

Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessment in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders. Summary and general recommendations. Spine 25:3100–3103PubMedCrossRef

Bombardier C (2000) Spine focus issue introduction. Spine 25:3097–309PubMedCrossRef

Boscainos P, Sapkas G, Stilianesi E (1999) Clinical relevance of specific parameters isolatecd within the Oswestry and Roland Morris functional disability index. J Bone Jourl Surg [Br] 81(Suppl):239

Boscainos PJ, Sapkas G, Stilianessi E, et al. (2003) Greek versions of the oswestry and roland-morris disability questionnaires. Clin Orthop 411:40–53PubMedCrossRef

Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37(1):53–72PubMedCrossRef

Coste J, Le_Parc JM, Berge E, et al. (1993) [French validation of a disability rating scale for the evaluation of low back pain (EIFEL questionnaire)]. Rev Rhum Ed Fr 60(5):335–341PubMed

10.

Crohnbach L (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRef

11.

Daltroy LH, Cats_Baril WL, Katz JN, et al (1996) The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21(6):741–749PubMedCrossRef

12.

Davidson M, Keating JL (2002) A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Physi Ther 82(1):8–24

13.

Deyo R, Centor R (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906PubMedCrossRef

14.

Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research A proposal for standardized use. Spine 23(18):2003–2013PubMedCrossRef

15.

Dionne CE, Von_Korff M, Koepsell TD, et al. (1999) A comparison of pain, functional limitations, and work status indices as outcome measures in back pain research. Spine 24(22):2339–2345PubMedCrossRef

16.

Dropsy R, Marty M (1994) Quality-of-life indexes for assessment of low-back-pain. Rev Rhum 61:S44–S48

17.

Dubs L (1999) Everything was done---patient still not satisfied: introduction to evidence-based surgery.Swiss Surg 5(4):160–166PubMedCrossRef

18.

Dubs L (2000) Der score bias. Schweiz. Aertzeteitung 81(6):292–295

19.

Dubs L (2000) The patient as expert---introduction to evidence-based orthopedics. Z Orthop 138(4):289–294PubMedCrossRef

20.

Euroquol-Group (1990) Euroquol---a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208CrossRef

21.

Fairbank J (1995) Use of Oswestry disability index (ODI). Spine 20(13):1535–1537PubMedCrossRef

22.

Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66(8):271–273PubMed

23.

Fisher K, Johnson M (1997) Validation of the Oswestry low back pain questionnaire, its sensitivity as a measure of change following treatment and its realtionship with other aspects of the chronic pain experience. Physiother Theory Pract 22:61–80

24.

Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ (2001) A comparison of a modified Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Physi Ther 81(2):776–778

25.

Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1992) Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine 17(1):36–41PubMedCrossRef

26.

Grimby G, Smedby B (2001) ICF approved as the successor of ICIDH. J Rehabil Med 33–5:193–194

27.

Gronblad M, Hupli M, Wennerstrand P, et al. (1993) Intercorrelation and test-retest reliability of the pain disability index (PDI) and the Oswestry disability questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients. Clin J Pain 9(3):189–195PubMedCrossRef

28.

Gronblad M, Jarvinen E, Hurri H, et al. (1994) Relationship of the pain disability index (PDI) and the Oswestry disability questionnaire (ODQ) with three dynamic physical tests in a group of patients with chronic low-back and leg pain. Clin J Pain 10(3):197–203PubMed

29.

Hefti F (1996) Numerische “Scores” zur Evaluation von Behandlungsresultaten am Bewegungsapparat. Schweiz. Aerztezeitung 77:118–25

30.

Holt AE, Shaw NJ, Shetty A, et al. (2002) The reliability of the low back outcome score for back pain. Spine 27(2):206–210PubMedCrossRef

31.

Hsieh CY, Phillips RB, Adams AH, et al. (1992) Functional outcomes of low back pain: comparison of four treatment groups in a randomized controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 15(1):4–9PubMed

32.

Huskisson EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet 2(7889):1127–1131PubMedCrossRef

33.

Johansson E, Lindberg P (1998) Subacute and chronic low back pain. Reliability and validity of a Swedish version of the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire. Scand J Rehabil Med 30(3):139–143PubMedCrossRef

34.

Kahtri H, Greenough CG (2002) Minimum clinically important difference in the low back outcome score. Society of Back Pain Research, Leeds

35.

Kopec JA, Esdaile JM (1995) Functional disability scales for back pain. Spine 20(17):1943–1949PubMedCrossRef

36.

Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, et al. (1995) The Quebec back pain disability scale. Measurement properties. Spine 20(3):341–352PubMedCrossRef

37.

Kovacs FM, Llobera J, Gil_Del_Real MT, et al. (2002) Validation of the spanish version of the Roland–Morris questionnaire. Spine 27(5):538–542PubMedCrossRef

38.

Kucukdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, et al. (2001) Validation of the Turkish version of the roland–morris disability questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine 26(24):2738–2743PubMedCrossRef

39.

Leclaire R, Blier F, Fortin L et al (1997) A cross-sectional study comparing the Oswestry and Roland–Morris functional disability scales in two populations of patients with low back pain of different levels of severity. Spine 22(1):68–71PubMedCrossRef

40.

Mannion A, Junge A, Fairbank J, et al. (2005) Development of a German version of the Oswestry disability index. Part 1: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. (in press)

41.

Mannion A, Junge A, Grob D, et al. (2005) Development of a German version of the Oswestry disability index. Part 2: Sensitivity. Eur Spine (in press)

42.

McDowell I, Newell C (1996) The theoretical and technical foundations of health measurement. Measuring health. A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press, Oxford pp 10–42

43.

Mueller U, Duetz M, Roeder C, et al. (2004) Condition specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: Validation. Eur Spine J 13:301–313CrossRef

44.

Mueller U, Roeder C, Dubs L, et al (2004) Condition Specific Outcome Measures for low back pain Part II: Scale construction. Eur Spine J 13:314–324

45.

Nusbaum L, Natour J, Ferraz MB, et al. (2001) Translation, adaptation and validation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire---Brazil Roland–Morris. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research = Revista Brasileira de Pesquisas Medicas E Biologicas/Sociedade Brasileira de Biofisica 34(2):203–210

46.

Padua R, Padua L, Ceccarelli E, et al. (2001) Cross-cultural adaptation of the lumbar North American Spine Society questionnaire for Italian-speaking patients with lumbar spinal disease. Spine 26(15):E344–E347PubMedCrossRef

47.

Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ et al. (1995) Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine 20(17):1899–908-discussion 909PubMedCrossRef

48.

Porst R (2000) Question wording---Zur Formulierung von Fragebogen-Fragen. ZUMA, Mannheim 2:1–11

49.

Pose B, Sangha O, Peters A, et al. (1999) Validation of the North American Spine Society Instrument for assessment of health status in patients with chronic backache. Zeitschrift Fur Orthopadie Und Ihre Grenzgebiete 137(5):437–441PubMed

50.

Raspe HH (1997) Minimum requirements in medical expert assessment of occupational disability of patients with chronic nonspecific pain. Versicherungsmedizin 49(4):118–125PubMed

51.

Roese I, Kohlmann T, Raspe H (1996) Measuring functional capacity in backache patients in rehabilitation: a comparison of standardized questionnaires 35(2):103–108

52.

Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roalnd–Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability index. Spine 25:3115–3124PubMedCrossRef

53.

Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8(2):141–144PubMedCrossRef

54.

Schoppink LE, van_Tulder MW, Koes BW, et al. (1996) Reliability and validity of the Dutch adaptation of the Quebec Back pain disability scale. Phys Ther 76(3):268–275PubMed

55.

Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, et al. (1996) Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland–Morris questionnaire. Physi Ther 76(4):359–365 discussion 66–8

56.

Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, et al. (1994) Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Physi Ther 74(6):528–33

57.

Stratford PW, Binkley JM (1997) Measurement properties of the RM-18. A modified version of the Roland–Morris disability scale. Spine 22(20):2416–2421PubMedCrossRef

58.

Streiner D, Normann G (1995) Health measurement scales. A Practical Guide to their Developement and Use. Oxford Medical Publications 2 edn. ISBN o-19–262670–1

59.

Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, et al. (1999) Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine 24(17):1805–1812PubMedCrossRef

60.

Underwood MR, Barnett AG, Vickers MR (1999) Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures. Spine 24(11):1104–1112PubMedCrossRef

61.

Van Tubergen A, Landewe R, Heuft-Dorenbosch L, et al. (2003) Assessment of disability with the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 62(2):140–145PubMedCrossRef

62.

Ware JEJ, Sherbourne CD. (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483PubMedCrossRef

63.

Wiesinger GF, Nuhr M, Quittan M, et al. (1999) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire for German-speaking patients with low back pain. Spine 24(11):1099–1103PubMedCrossRef

64.

Zoega B, Karrholm J, Lind B (2000) Outcome scores in degenerative cervical disc surgery. Eur Spine J 9(2):137–143PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Back related outcome assessment instruments
verfasst von: Urs Müller
Christoph Röder
Charles G. Greenough
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2006
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: European Spine Journal / Ausgabe Sonderheft 1/2006
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1054-8

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

23.04.2024 | Leitsymptom Rückenschmerzen | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Back related outcome assessment instruments

Abstract

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 1/2006

Economic evaluations: a new avenue of outcome assessment in spinal disorders

A practical approach to spine registers in Europe: the Swedish experience

Methodological aspects of outcomes research

Health related quality of life outcome instruments

Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment

Work-related outcome assessment instruments

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie