Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Changes in Iranian People with Lumbar Disc Herniation Following Physiotherapy

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

Objectives: The present study aimed to investigate the responsiveness of the Persian version of the 
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Quebec Back 
Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) and detect minimal clinically important changes (MCICs) of these 
questionnaires in people with lumbar disc herniation.
Methods: Ninety-two patients with lumbar herniated disc completed the Persianversion of the ODI, RMDQ, and 
QBPDS before and after the physiotherapy intervention. Additionally, they completed a global rating of change scale 
after the final physiotherapy session to give an account of non-improved and improved outcomes. The 
responsiveness of these three disability questionnaires was represented by Receiver Operating Characteristic 
(ROC) and correlation analyses. The MCIC was defined as the best cut-off when sensitivity and specificity were 
optimally balanced.
Results: Area under the ROC curves are in the acceptable range for ODI and QBPDS (0.78 and 0.70, respectively). 
Moreover, ODI, RMDQ, and QBPDS have significant positive fair to moderate correlation with the external anchor 
(P<0.001). The MCIC values for ODI, RMDQ, and QBPDS were 13, 5.5, and 14.5 points, respectively.
Conclusion: Our results revealed that the ODI and QBPDS questionnaires have adequate responsiveness to detect 
improvements in the functional status of lumbar herniated disc patients following a physiotherapy treatment. 
Therefore, the ODI and QBPDS seem to be superior to the RMDQ for use in randomized clinical trials and clinical 
settings in patients with herniated lumbar discs. The MCIC scores of 13 and 14.5 obtained for the ODI and QBPDS 
can help to identify important changes in the clinical status of an individual patient and treatment efficacy.
 Level of evidence: IV

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Thomas S. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. BMJ. 2006; 332:1430-1434. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7555.1430.
  2. Sedighi M, Haghnegahdar A. Lumbar disk herniation surgery: outcome and predictors. Global Spine J. 2014; 4:233-244. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1390010.
  3. Kovacs FM, Abraira V, Zamora J, et al. Correlation between pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with common low back pain. Spine. 2004; 29:206-210. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000107235.47465.08.
  4. Roland M, Morris R. 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. 1983; 8:141-144. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004.
  5. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980; 66:271-273.
  6. Changulani M, Shaju A. Evaluation of responsiveness of Oswestry low back pain disability index. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009; 129:691-694. doi: 10.1007/s00402-008-0653-3.
  7. Kuijer W, Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, Jorritsma W, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JH. Responsiveness of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: consequences of using different external criteria. Clin Rehab. 2005; 19:488-495. doi: 10.1191/0269215505cr842oa.
  8. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine. 2000; 25:3115-3124. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006.
  9. Demoulin C, Ostelo R, Knottnerus JA, Smeets RJ. Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale was responsive and showed reasonable interpretability after a multidisciplinary treatment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63:1249-1255. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.029.
  10. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, et al. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties. Spine. 1995; 20:341-352. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199502000-00016.
  11. Valasek T, Varga PP, Szövérfi Z, Kümin M, Fairbank J, Lazary A. Reliability and validity study on the Hungarian versions of the oswestry disability index and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22:1010-1018. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2645-9.
  12. Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, Mehdian H, Montazeri A, Mobini B. The Oswestry Disability Index, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions. Spine. 2006; 31:454-459. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000222141.61424.f7.
  13. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vøllestad NK. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. J Rehabil Med. 2003; 35:241-247. doi: 10.1080/16501970306094.
  14. Coelho RA, Siqueira FB, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML. Responsiveness of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index in subjects with low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2008; 17:1101-1106. doi: 10.1007/s00586-008-0690-1.
  15. Costa LO, Maher CG, Latimer J, Ferreira PH, Pozzi GC, Ribeiro RN. Psychometric characteristics of the Brazilian-Portuguese versions of the Functional Rating Index and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Spine. 2007; 32:1902-1907. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31811eab33.
  16. Vieira AC, Moniz S, Fernandes R, Carnide F, Cruz EB. Responsiveness and interpretability of the Portuguese version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine. 2014; 39:346-352. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000159.

17.              Frost H, Lamb SE, Stewart-Brown S. 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. 2008; 33:2450-2457. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31818916fd.

  1. Hashimoto H, Komagata M, Nakai O, et al. Discriminative validity and responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index among Japanese outpatients with lumbar conditions. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15:1645-1650. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-0022-7.
  2. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006; 7:82. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-82.
  3. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53:459-468. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00206-1.
  4. Judge A, Arden NK, Kiran A, et al. Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes for hip and knee replacement surgery: identification of thresholds associated with satisfaction with surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2012; 94:412-418. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B3.27425.
  5. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996; 76:1109-1123. doi: 10.1093/ptj/76.10.1109.
  6. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60:34-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
  7. Vanti C, Ferrari S, Villafañe JH, Berjano P, Monticone M. Responsiveness and minimum important change of the Oswestry Disability Index in Italian subjects with symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Traumatol. 2017; 18:145-150. doi: 10.1007/s10195-017-0446-y.
  8. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL,eds. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide.1st ed. Cambridge university press; 2011.
  9. Divandari A, Mostafaee N, Negahban H, Kachooei AR, Moradi A, Ebrahimzadeh MH. Responsiveness and Minimally Important Changes for Persian-version of Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation Questionnaire in Patients with Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy Following Physiotherapy Intervention. Arch Bone Jt Surg .2022; 10:885-891. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2022.65220.3128.
  10. Daghiani M, Negahban H, Mostafaee N, et al. Psychometric Properties of Full and Shortened Persian-version of Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index Questionnaires in Persian-speaking Patients with Shoulder Pain. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2022; 10:668-676. doi: 10.22038/ABJS.2022.64227.3082.
  11. Mostafaee N, Nourollahi F, Mostamand J, Negahban H. Responsiveness and the minimal important change of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in Persian patients with knee osteoarthritis following physiotherapy intervention. Physiother Theory Pract. 2022; 38:2185-2194. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2021.1926021.
  12. Mostafaee N, Yazdi MJS, Negahban H, Goharpey S, Mehravar M, Pirayeh N. Responsiveness of Static and Dynamic Postural Balance Measures in Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Following Physiotherapy Intervention. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2017; 5:153-167.
  13. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine. 2000; 25:2940-2952. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017.
  14. Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HC, Hancock MJ. Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63:760-766. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.009.
  15. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010; 10:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22.
  16. Christiansen DH, Frost P, Falla D, Haahr JP, Frich LH, Svendsen SW. Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Change: A Comparison Between 2 Shoulder Outcome Measures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015; 45:620-625. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2015.5760.
  17. Houweling TA. Reporting improvement from patient-reported outcome measures: A review. Clinical Chiropractic. 2010; 13:15-22.
  18. Bolton JE. Sensitivity and Specificity of Outcome Measures in Patients with Neck Pain: Detecting Clinically Significant Improvement. Spine. 2004; 29:2410-2417. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000143080.74061.25.
  19. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Finch E, Gill C, Moreland J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996; 76:359-365. doi: 10.1093/ptj/76.4.359.
  20. Wittink H, Turk DC, Carr DB, Sukiennik A, Rogers W. Comparison of the redundancy, reliability, and responsiveness to change among SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index, and Multidimensional Pain Inventory. Clin J Pain. 2004;

 

20:133-142. doi: 10.1097/00002508-200405000-00002.

  1. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN. 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. 2003; 28:607-615. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000050654.97387.DF.
  2. Ma C, Wu S, Xiao L, Xue Y. Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20:475-481. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1624-2.
  3. Turner JA, Fulton-Kehoe D, Franklin G, Wickizer TM, Wu R. Comparison of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and generic health status measures: a population-based study of workers' compensation back injury claimants. Spine. 2003; 28:1061-1067. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000062007.95197.08.
  4. Mostafaee N, Divandari A, Negahban H, et al. Shoulder and scapula muscle training plus conventional physiotherapy versus conventional physiotherapy only: a randomized controlled trial of patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy. Physiother Theory Pract .2022; 38:1153-1164. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2020.1821417.
  5. Saadat M, Salamat S, Mostafaee N, Soleimani F, Rouintan Z, Amin M. To evaluate responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) for the Persian versions of FABQ, TSK, and PCS. Eur Spine J. 2023; 32:3023-3029. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07835-w.
  6. Mostafaee N, Rashidi F, Negahban H, Ebrahimzadeh MH. Responsiveness and minimal important changes of the OARSI core set of performance-based measures in patients with knee osteoarthritis following physiotherapy intervention. Physiother Theory Pract. 2022; 1-12. doi: 10.1080/09593985.2022.2143253.
  7. Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009; 17:163-170. doi: 10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163.
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 12, Issue 1
January 2024
Pages 58-65

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 12 May 2023
  • Revise Date: 12 November 2023
  • Accept Date: 30 October 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics