Top

Published in:

01-03-2011 | Original Article

Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain

Authors: Chao Ma, Shaoling Wu, Lingjun Xiao, Yunlian Xue

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 3/2011

Abstract

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is one of the most widely used questionnaires that assess disability in patients with low back pain (LBP). Responsiveness is both an important psychometric property of an instrument and a key issue for clinicians when choosing suitable outcome measures. The objective of this study was to examine the responsiveness of the Chinese version of the ODI (ODI-Chinese) for subjects with chronic LBP following a physical therapy program. In total, 76 patients with chronic LBP completed the ODI-Chinese, a visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, and the Chinese version of Short Form-36 (SF-36) before and after treatment. All patients also completed a global perception of change Likert scale in condition after the program. The scale was collapsed to produce a dichotomous variable outcome, improved or non-improved. The responsiveness of the instruments was determined using the standardized response means (SRM) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC). After treatment, 56 patients considered themselves to be improved. The SRM of the ODI-Chinese was −1.2 in the improved group and −0.4 in the non-improved group. The area of the ROC curve for the ODI-Chinese was 0.77 (95% CI 0.66–0.89). Therefore, the Chinese version of the ODI is both responsive and appropriate for use in chronic LBP patients after conservative therapy.

Beaton DE (2000) Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine 25:3192–3199 (PMID: 11124736)PubMedCrossRef

Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Köke AJ (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76 (PMID: 8826492)PubMedCrossRef

Coelho RA, Siqueira FB, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML (2008) Responsiveness of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index in subjects with low back pain. Eur Spine J 17:1101–1106. (PMID: 18512083). doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0690-1 PubMedCrossRef

Costa LO, Maher CG, Latimer J (2007) Self-report outcome measures for low back pain: searching for international cross-cultural adaptations. Spine 32:1028–1037 (PMID: 17450079)PubMedCrossRef

Davidson M, Keating JL (2002) A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 82:8–24 (PMID: 11784274)PubMed

Deyo RA, Centor RM (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906 (PMID: 2947907)PubMedCrossRef

Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273 (PMID: 6450426)PubMed

Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952 (PMID: 11074683)PubMedCrossRef

Frost H, Lamb SE, Stewart-Brown S (2008) Responsiveness of a patient specific outcome measure compared with the Oswestry Disability Index v2.1 and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain. Spine 33:2450–2458 (PMID: 18824951)PubMedCrossRef

10.

Grotle M, Brox JI, Vøllestad NK (2004) Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine 29:E492–E501 (PMID: 15507789)PubMedCrossRef

11.

Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, Taylor DW (1985) Should study subjects see their previous responses? J Chronic Dis 38:1003–1007 (PMID: 4066888)PubMedCrossRef

12.

Hashimoto H, Komagata M, Nakai O, Morishita M, Tokuhashi Y, Sano S, Nohara Y, Okajima Y (2006) Discriminative validity and responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index among Japanese outpatients with lumbar conditions. Eur Spine J 15:1645–1650. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0022-7 PubMedCrossRef

13.

Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20. doi:10.1007/s00586-002-0464-0 PubMed

14.

Jin K, Sorock GS, Courtney T, Liang Y, Yao Z, Matz S, Ge L (2000) Risk factors for work-related low back pain in the People’s Republic of China. Int J Occup Environ Health 6:26–33 (PMID: 10637534)PubMed

15.

Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N (2006) Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:82. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-82 PubMedCrossRef

16.

Liu H, Tao H, Luo Z (2009) Validation of the simplified Chinese version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 34:1211–1217 (PMID: 19444069)PubMedCrossRef

17.

Li L, Wang HM, Shen Y (2003) Chinese SF-36 Health Survey: translation, cultural adaptation, validation, and normalization. J Epidemiol Community Health 57:259–263 (PMID: 12646540)PubMedCrossRef

18.

Mannion AF, Junge A, Grob D, Dvorak J, Fairbank JC (2006) Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 2. Sensitivity to change after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 15:66–73. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0816-z PubMedCrossRef

19.

Merkesdal S, Mau W (2005) Prediction of costs-of-illness in patients with low back pain undergoing orthopedic outpatient rehabilitation. Int J Rehabil Res 28:119–126 (PMID: 15900181)PubMedCrossRef

20.

Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G (1997) Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50:869–879 (PMID: 9291871)PubMedCrossRef

21.

Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 33:90–94 (PMID: 18165753)PubMedCrossRef

22.

Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, Fogg AJ (1999) Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine 24:1805–1812 (PMID: 10488511)PubMedCrossRef

23.

Vianin M (2008) Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry Disability Index. J Chiropr Med 7:161–163 (PMID: 19646379)PubMedCrossRef

24.

Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN (2003) Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 28:607–615 (PMID: 12642770)PubMedCrossRef

25.

Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, Brooks P, Tugwell P (2001) Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28:406–412 (PMID:11246688)PubMed

Title: Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain
Authors: Chao Ma
Shaoling Wu
Lingjun Xiao
Yunlian Xue
Publication date: 01-03-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1624-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

Responsiveness of the 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire

Gait adaptations in low back pain patients with lumbar disc herniation: trunk coordination and arm swing

Announcements for issue 20-3-2011

Low grade lytic spondylolisthesis L4/L5 treated with PLIF

Impact of postpartum lumbopelvic pain on disability, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, activity level, kinesiophobia, and depressive symptoms

Development of a documentation instrument for the conservative treatment of spinal disorders in the International Spine Registry, Spine Tango