Dataset Information

Different minimally important clinical difference (MCID) scores lead to different clinical prediction rules for the Oswestry disability index for the same sample of patients.

ABSTRACT: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores for outcome measures are frequently used evidence-based guides to gage meaningful changes. There are numerous outcome instruments used for analyzing pain, disability, and dysfunction of the low back; perhaps the most common of these is the Oswestry disability index (ODI). A single agreed-upon MCID score for the ODI has yet to be established. What is also unknown is whether selected baseline variables will be universal predictors regardless of the MCID used for a particular outcome measure.To explore the relationship between predictive models and the MCID cutpoint on the ODI.Data were collected from 16 outpatient physical therapy clinics in 10 states.Secondary database analysis using backward stepwise deletion logistic regression of data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to create prognostic clinical prediction rules (CPR).One hundred and forty-nine patients with low back pain (LBP) were enrolled in the RCT. All were treated with manual therapy, with a majority also receiving spine-strengthening exercises.The resultant predictive models were dependent upon the MCID used and baseline sample characteristics. All CPR were statistically significant (P < 001). All six MCID cutpoints used resulted in completely different significant predictor variables with no predictor significant across all models.The primary limitations include sub-optimal sample size and study design.There is extreme variability among predictive models created using different MCIDs on the ODI within the same patient population. Our findings highlight the instability of predictive modeling, as these models are significantly affected by population baseline characteristics along with the MCID used. Clinicians must be aware of the fragility of CPR prior to applying each in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Schwind J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3649353 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Different minimally important clinical difference (MCID) scores lead to different clinical prediction rules for the Oswestry disability index for the same sample of patients.

Schwind Julie J Learman Kenneth K O'Halloran Bryan B Showalter Christopher C Cook Chad C

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy 20130501 2

<h4>Background</h4>Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) scores for outcome measures are frequently used evidence-based guides to gage meaningful changes. There are numerous outcome instruments used for analyzing pain, disability, and dysfunction of the low back; perhaps the most common of these is the Oswestry disability index (ODI). A single agreed-upon MCID score for the ODI has yet to be established. What is also unknown is whether selected baseline variables will be universal predi ...[more]

PMID: 24421616

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOswestry Disability Index (ODI) is broadly used in clinical and research settings for assessing the disability level in patients with lumbar radiculopathy but it has not been translated into Urdu language according to the pre-established translation guidelines as well as the validity and reliability of ODI Urdu version has not been tested yet. The aim of this study was to translate ODI in native Urdu language (ODI-U) according to recommended guidelines and to measure its psychometric properties in Urdu speaking patients suffering from lumber radiculopathy.MethodsOut of 108 participants, 54 were healthy (who filled ODI-U) and 54 were patients of lumber radiculopathy. The patients were administered through ODI-U, visual analogue scales for disability (VAS disability), pain intensity (VAS pain) and SF-36 at baseline and after 3 days. Reliability was investigated through test-retest method, internal consistency, standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC). ODI-U was assessed for exploratory factor analysis, construct (convergent and discriminative) validity and content validity. Alpha level < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and psychometric standards were evaluated contrary to priori hypothesis.ResultsODI-U revealed excellent test-retest reliability for total score (ICC2,1 = 0.95) and for all item (ICC2,1 = 0.72-0.98). Cronbach's alpha of 0.89 showed excellent internal consistency and moderate correlation between ODI-U total score and each item through spearman's correlation coefficient (r = 0.51-0.76). One factor structure was created, explaining 52.5% variance. There was no floor and ceiling effect of total ODI-U score. Content validity was assessed through conducting interviews with patients and incorporating expert's opinions. The discriminative validity was measured by independent sample t-test, where significant difference between healthy and patients (P < 0.001) was observed. The convergent validity was evaluated through Pearson's correlation showing moderate positive correlation of ODI-U with VAS pain (r = 0.49) and VAS disability (r = 0.51) but moderate negative correlation with all SF-36 domains (r = - 0.43to - 0.63).ConclusionODI-U showed adequate psychometric properties. ODI-U was found to be a reliable and a valid tool to measure the level of disability in Urdu-speaking patients with lumber radiculopathy.

Project description:Background contextWhen different health care providers use different patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, it is challenging to integrate findings that describe particular patient groups or to establish treatment effectiveness across studies. It is therefore critical to develop accurate ways to convert scores between various instruments for clinicians and researchers to make comparisons across health outcomes.PurposeTo develop a common metric so that scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and scores on the PROMIS Physical Function can be converted interchangeably.Study design/settingData were collected from a prospective study. A single-group linking design was used.Patient sampleThe study population included 9020 patients presented to an orthopedic spine clinic from November 2013 to March 2019.Outcome measuresPatients completed the ODI and the PROMIS Pain Interference scale delivered by Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) at the same time prior to their visit with a spine clinician.MethodsEquipercentile linking methods based on log-linear smoothing approach and non-smoothing approach were used to establish a common metric across the two measures.ResultsThe two measures assess the similar contruct of pain. The correlation between the scores of the ODI and the PROMIS PI was 0.81. The standardized Root Expected Mean Square Difference (REMSD) values for gender, ethnic, and racial groups ranged from 3.55% to 4.81%. Hence, the assumptions for the equipercentile linking method were met. The crosswalk derived linked scores based on the log-linear smoothing method yielded small deviations (Δ = 0.09) from the observed scores. We then identified linked PROMIS-PI scores corresponding to the benchmark ODI scores for the five disability levels and for various categories of patients.ConclusionsThis study is the first to create crosswalks to interchangeably convert scores between the ODI to the PROMIS-PI in a large population of spine patients using the equipercentile linking method. The results of this study provide confidence in the validity and usefulness of the derived crosswalks based on the equipercentile linking approach. The crosswalks are helpful for comparing new and old studies on the two measures and identifying benchmark scores for various diseases and disability levels.

Project description:PurposePatient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are widely used in spine care. The development of reliable and valid National versions of spine-related disability questionnaires is strongly recommended from both the clinical and scientific points-of-view. The aims of this study were to adapt and validate the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Quebec back pain disability scale (QDS) for use with the Hungarian language.MethodsAfter translating and culturally adapting the ODI and QDS, 133 patients with lumbar degenerative spinal disorder filled in the questionnaire booklet twice within 2 weeks. Subjects completed the Hungarian versions of the two PROMs as well as the WHOQoL-BREF validated as a general life quality questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scale of pain. Internal consistency, reliability and construct validity of the questionnaires were determined, as were the standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) scores.ResultsThe Hungarian ODI consisted of one factor that showed good internal consistency (Cronbach-α 0.890). The QDS showed a four-factor structure with Cronbach-α values between 0.788 and 0.917. No significant floor or ceiling effects were observed. The test-retest analysis showed excellent reliability of the Hungarian ODI and QDS. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.927 and 0.923, respectively. SEM values of 4.8 and 5.2 resulted in a MDC of 13 and 14 points in the Hungarian ODI and QDS, respectively. The correlation coefficient (r) between pain and ODI was 0.680 (p < 0.001) and the correlation between the ODI and the physical subscale of WHOQoL was also very good (r = -0.705, p < 0.001). The QDS total score and its four subscales correlated significantly with pain and with the physical subscale of WHOQoL (r > 0.4, p < 0.001). The level of disability measured by the Hungarian ODI and QDS was significantly higher in the surgical subgroup than in non-surgically treated patients (p < 0.001).ConclusionsTranslation and cultural adaptation of the ODI and QDS were successful. Hungarian versions of the ODI and QDS proved to be reliable, valid PROMs confirming that they can be used in future clinical and scientific work with Hungarian-speaking spine patients.

Project description:Background contextThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Information System (PROMIS) instruments are an important advancement in the use of PROs, but need to be evaluated with longitudinal data to determine whether they are responsive to change in specific clinical populations.PurposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the responsiveness of the PROMIS Physical Function (PF), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).Study design/settingThis study entailed prospective data collection from consecutive patients aged 18 and older, visiting a university-based orthopaedic spine clinic between October 2013 and January 2017.Patient sampleA total of 763 participants in the sample had a mean age of 58 (SD = 15) years and the sample was 50.2% male and 92.8% Caucasian.Outcome measuresThe PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI Computerized Adaptive Tests along with either the NDI or ODI instruments were administered on tablet computers before clinic visits. Global rating of change questions relating to pain and function levels was also administered.MethodsBaseline scores were compared with follow-up scores at four different time-points from 3-months to 6-months and beyond. Patient demographics, mean scores, paired-sample t tests, Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Effect Size (ES) were analyzed to determine instrument responsiveness. This project was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number U01AR067138 and the authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.ResultsThe PROMIS instruments were strongly correlated with each other as well as with the NDI and ODI. Responsiveness was significant on all four instruments at every time-point assessed (paired sample t tests ranged from p < .001 to p = .049). SRM's were large and over 0.94 for every instrument at every time-point. Cohen's d ES were large and over 0.96 for all at all time-points, except for the NDI which had ES ranging from 0.74 to 0.83. This study showed large effect sizes and responsiveness of the PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, NDI and ODI in a population of orthopaedic patients with spine pathologies.ConclusionThis study demonstrates strong responsiveness of the PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI in a spine clinic population.

Dataset Information

Different minimally important clinical difference (MCID) scores lead to different clinical prediction rules for the Oswestry disability index for the same sample of patients.

Publications

Different minimally important clinical difference (MCID) scores lead to different clinical prediction rules for the Oswestry disability index for the same sample of patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets