Cargando…
A comparison between the low back pain scales for patients with lumbar disc herniation: validity, reliability, and responsiveness
BACKGROUND: Although the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) has shown a preferable psychometric prope...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7288427/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32522196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01403-2 |
_version_ | 1783545274012008448 |
---|---|
author | Yao, Min Xu, Bao-ping Li, Zhen-jun Zhu, Sen Tian, Zi-rui Li, De-hua Cen, Jue Cheng, Shao-dan Wang, Yong-jun Guo, Yan-ming Cui, Xue-jun |
author_facet | Yao, Min Xu, Bao-ping Li, Zhen-jun Zhu, Sen Tian, Zi-rui Li, De-hua Cen, Jue Cheng, Shao-dan Wang, Yong-jun Guo, Yan-ming Cui, Xue-jun |
author_sort | Yao, Min |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Although the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) has shown a preferable psychometric properties in patients with low back pain (LBP), but no study has yet determined these in conservative treatment of patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Thus the current study aimed to compare those scales in LDH patients receiving conservative treatment to select the better option to assess the severity of disease. METHODS: LDH patients were invited to complete the JOABPEQ, NPRS, ODI, RMDQ, and SF-36 twice. The internal consistency was evaluated by the Cronbach’s α. Test-retest reliability was tested by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The relationships of these scales were evaluated by the Pearson correlation coefficients (r). The responsiveness was operationalised using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, as well as the comparison of smallest detectable change (SDC), minimum important change (MIC). RESULTS: A total of 353 LDH patients were enrolled. Four subscales of the Chinese JOABPEQ were over 0.70, then the ICCs for the test-retest reliability were over 0.75. For functional status, remarked negative correlations could be seen between JOABPEQ Q2-Q4 and ODI, as well as RMDQ (r = − 0.634 to − 0.752). For general health status, remarkable positive correlations could also be seen between Q5 Mental health and SF-36 PCS (r = 0.724) as well as SF-36 MCS (r = 0.736). Besides, the area under of the curves (AUC) of the JOABPEQ ranged from 0.743 to 0.827, indicating acceptale responsiveness, as well as the NPRS, ODI, and RMDQ. CONCLUSION: NPRS, and ODI or RMDQ is recommended in studies related to LDH patients, while if the quality of life also is needed to observe, the NPRS, and JOABPEQ would be more appropriate rather than SF-36. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7288427 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72884272020-06-11 A comparison between the low back pain scales for patients with lumbar disc herniation: validity, reliability, and responsiveness Yao, Min Xu, Bao-ping Li, Zhen-jun Zhu, Sen Tian, Zi-rui Li, De-hua Cen, Jue Cheng, Shao-dan Wang, Yong-jun Guo, Yan-ming Cui, Xue-jun Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Although the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) has shown a preferable psychometric properties in patients with low back pain (LBP), but no study has yet determined these in conservative treatment of patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Thus the current study aimed to compare those scales in LDH patients receiving conservative treatment to select the better option to assess the severity of disease. METHODS: LDH patients were invited to complete the JOABPEQ, NPRS, ODI, RMDQ, and SF-36 twice. The internal consistency was evaluated by the Cronbach’s α. Test-retest reliability was tested by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The relationships of these scales were evaluated by the Pearson correlation coefficients (r). The responsiveness was operationalised using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, as well as the comparison of smallest detectable change (SDC), minimum important change (MIC). RESULTS: A total of 353 LDH patients were enrolled. Four subscales of the Chinese JOABPEQ were over 0.70, then the ICCs for the test-retest reliability were over 0.75. For functional status, remarked negative correlations could be seen between JOABPEQ Q2-Q4 and ODI, as well as RMDQ (r = − 0.634 to − 0.752). For general health status, remarkable positive correlations could also be seen between Q5 Mental health and SF-36 PCS (r = 0.724) as well as SF-36 MCS (r = 0.736). Besides, the area under of the curves (AUC) of the JOABPEQ ranged from 0.743 to 0.827, indicating acceptale responsiveness, as well as the NPRS, ODI, and RMDQ. CONCLUSION: NPRS, and ODI or RMDQ is recommended in studies related to LDH patients, while if the quality of life also is needed to observe, the NPRS, and JOABPEQ would be more appropriate rather than SF-36. BioMed Central 2020-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7288427/ /pubmed/32522196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01403-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Yao, Min Xu, Bao-ping Li, Zhen-jun Zhu, Sen Tian, Zi-rui Li, De-hua Cen, Jue Cheng, Shao-dan Wang, Yong-jun Guo, Yan-ming Cui, Xue-jun A comparison between the low back pain scales for patients with lumbar disc herniation: validity, reliability, and responsiveness |
title | A comparison between the low back pain scales for patients with lumbar disc herniation: validity, reliability, and responsiveness |
title_full | A comparison between the low back pain scales for patients with lumbar disc herniation: validity, reliability, and responsiveness |
title_fullStr | A comparison between the low back pain scales for patients with lumbar disc herniation: validity, reliability, and responsiveness |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison between the low back pain scales for patients with lumbar disc herniation: validity, reliability, and responsiveness |
title_short | A comparison between the low back pain scales for patients with lumbar disc herniation: validity, reliability, and responsiveness |
title_sort | comparison between the low back pain scales for patients with lumbar disc herniation: validity, reliability, and responsiveness |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7288427/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32522196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01403-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yaomin acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT xubaoping acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT lizhenjun acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT zhusen acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT tianzirui acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT lidehua acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT cenjue acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT chengshaodan acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT wangyongjun acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT guoyanming acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT cuixuejun acomparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT yaomin comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT xubaoping comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT lizhenjun comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT zhusen comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT tianzirui comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT lidehua comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT cenjue comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT chengshaodan comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT wangyongjun comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT guoyanming comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness AT cuixuejun comparisonbetweenthelowbackpainscalesforpatientswithlumbardischerniationvalidityreliabilityandresponsiveness |