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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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