Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 1/2015

01-01-2015 | Original Article

Reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the neck disability index-Dutch version in primary care

Authors: Luc Ailliet, S. M. Rubinstein, H. C. W. de Vet, M. W. van Tulder, C. B. Terwee

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To establish an evidence-based recommendation for the pragmatic use of the Neck Disability Index-Dutch Version (NDI-DV) in primary care based on an assessment of the reliability, the responsiveness, and the interpretability of the NDI-DV.

Study design and setting/methods

At baseline, the NDI-DV was completed by 337 patients with neck pain presenting to 97 chiropractic clinics in Belgium and the Netherlands. Three months after inclusion, 265 patients provided data to assess the responsiveness and interpretability. Reliability was assessed in 155 patients (retested after 10 days) by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficient for agreement (ICCagreement) and the measurement error (standard error of measurement, SEM), the latter resulting in the smallest detectable change (SDC). The minimal important change (MIC) was assessed by the anchor-based MIC distribution using self-reported perceived recovery as anchor. We tested interpretability by relating SDC to MIC.

Results

The ICCagreement was 0.88. The SEMagreement was 1.95 resulting in a SDC of 5.40. The NDI-DV appeared to be responsive, being able to distinguish improved from stable patients with an area under the curve of 0.85. The MIC was 4.50.

Conclusion

The NDI-DV has good reliability and responsiveness and may be used in clinical practice in Belgium and the Netherlands. A change score of 5 is important for patients, but has a 7 % chance to be due to measurement error.
Literature
1.
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH (2007) Patient reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 10(Suppl 2):125–137CrossRef
2.
Schellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Heymans MW, Koes BW, de Vet HC, Terwee CB (2012) Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Qual Life Res 21(4):659–670PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
3.
Schellingerhout JM, Heymans MW, Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, Koes BW, Terwee CB (2011) Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: a systemic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:87PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
4.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al (2010) International consensus on taxonomy, terminology and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient reported outcomes: result of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol 63:737–745PubMedCrossRef
5.
Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42PubMedCrossRef
6.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL (2011) Measurement in medicine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
7.
Jorritsma W, de Vries GE, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JHB, Reneman MF (2012) Detecting relevant changes and responsiveness of neck pain and disability scale and neck disability index. Eur Spine J 21:2550–2557PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
Jorritsma W, de Vries GE, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JHB, Reneman MF (2012) Neck pain and disability scale and neck disability index: validity of Dutch language versions. Eur Spine J 21:93–100PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
Köke AJA, Heuts PHTG, Vlayen JWS, Weber WEJ (1996) Neck disability index. In: Köke AJA (ed) Meetinstrumenten chronische pijn. Deel 1 functionele status. Pijn Kennis Centrum Maastricht, pp 94–95
10.
Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14:409–415
11.
De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM (2006) When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1033–1039PubMedCrossRef
12.
Macdermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, Blanchard A, Etruw E, Mcalpine C, Goldsmith CH (2009) Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 39(5):400–417PubMedCrossRef
13.
Nunally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York
14.
de Vet HCW, Ostelo RWJG, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter LM (2007) Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 16:131–142PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36PubMedCrossRef
16.
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4:293–307PubMedCrossRef
17.
Van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, Van Tulder MW, De Vet HCW (2006) Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 31:578–582PubMedCrossRef
18.
De Boer MR, De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Moll AC, Volker-Dieben HJ, Van Rens GH (2005) Changes to the subscales of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires are proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:1260–1268PubMedCrossRef
19.
Vos CJ, Verhagen AP, Koes BW (2006) Reliability and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the neck disability index in patients with acute neck pain in general practice. Eur Spine J 15:1729–1736PubMedCrossRef
20.
Pool JJ, Ostelo RW, Hoving JL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW (2007) Minimal clinically important change of the neck disability index and the numerical rating scale for patients with neck pain. Spine 32:3047–3051PubMedCrossRef
21.
van der Velde G, Beaton D, Hogg-Johnston S, Hurwitz E, Tennant A (2009) Rash analysis provides new insight into the measurement properties of the neck disability index. Arthritis Rheum 61(4):544–551PubMedCrossRef
22.
Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, Croft P, de Vet HCW (2010) Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63:524–534PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the neck disability index-Dutch version in primary care
Authors
Luc Ailliet
S. M. Rubinstein
H. C. W. de Vet
M. W. van Tulder
C. B. Terwee
Publication date
01-01-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3359-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

European Spine Journal 1/2015 Go to the issue

Review Article

Anterior cervical discectomy versus corpectomy for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta-analysis

Original Article

Hyperextension injury of the cervical spine with central cord syndrome

Original Article

Multi-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus single-level CDA for the treatment of cervical disc diseases: a meta-analysis

Original Article

Cervical spine injuries and flexibilities following axial impact with lateral eccentricity

Original Article

Impact on health related quality of life of adult spinal deformity (ASD) compared with other chronic conditions

Original Article

Long-term survivors after surgical management of metastatic spinal cord compression