Skip to main content
Log in

Development of a mapping function ("crosswalk") for the conversion of scores between the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) are two commonly used self-rating outcome instruments in patients with lumbar spinal disorders. No formal crosswalk between them exists that would otherwise allow the scores of one to be interpreted in terms of the other. We aimed to create such a mapping function.

Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of ODI and COMI data previously collected from 3324 patients (57 ± 17y; 60.3% female) at baseline and 1y after surgical or conservative treatment. Correlations between scores and Cohen’s kappa for agreement (κ) regarding achievement of the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) score on each instrument (ODI, 12.8 points; COMI, 2.2 points) were calculated, and regression models were built. The latter were tested for accuracy in an independent set of registry data from 634 patients (60 ± 15y; 56.8% female).

Results

All pairs of measures were significantly positively correlated (baseline, 0.73; 1y follow-up (FU), 0.84; change-scores, 0.73). MCIC for COMI was achieved in 53.9% patients and for ODI, in 52.4%, with 78% agreement on an individual basis (κ = 0.56). Standard errors for the regression slopes and intercepts were low, indicating excellent prediction at the group level, but root mean square residuals (reflecting individual error) were relatively high. ODI was predicted as COMI × 7.13–4.20 (at baseline), COMI × 6.34 + 2.67 (at FU) and COMI × 5.18 + 1.92 (for change-score); COMI was predicted as ODI × 0.075 + 3.64 (baseline), ODI × 0.113 + 0.96 (FU), and ODI × 0.102 + 1.10 (change-score). ICCs were 0.63–0.87 for derived versus actual scores.

Conclusion

Predictions at the group level were very good and met standards justifying the pooling of data. However, we caution against using individual values for treatment decisions, e.g. attempting to monitor patients over time, first with one instrument and then with the other, due to the lower statistical precision at the individual level. The ability to convert scores via the developed mapping function should open up more centres/registries for collaboration and facilitate the combining of data in meta-analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hrobjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 74:790–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Puhan MA, Soesilo I, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ (2006) Combining scores from different patient reported outcome measures in meta-analyses: when is it justified? Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:94. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, McDonough CM, Rampersaud R, Berven S, Shainline M (2009) Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the Oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2085–2089. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a93ea6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Morris T, Hee SW, Stallard N, Underwood M, Patel S (2015) Can we convert between outcome measures of disability for chronic low back pain? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:734–739. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000866

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Deyo RA, Battié M, Beurskens AJHM, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 23:2003–2013

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK, Jacobshagen N, Dvorak J, Boos N (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ferrer M, Pellise F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J, Deyo R (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine 31:1372–1379; discussion 1380

  10. Abdeldaiem A, Saweeres E, Shehab-Eldien A, Mannion AF, Youssef A (2020) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI-Back) in patients with non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J 29:2413–2430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Connor DP (2017) CORR insights®: crosscultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the new knee society knee scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:549–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5172-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pellise F, Vila-Casademunt A, Ferrer M, Domingo-Sabat M, Bago J, Perez-Grueso FJ, Alanay A, Mannion AF, Acaroglu E (2015) Impact on health related quality of life of adult spinal deformity (ASD) compared with other chronic conditions. Eur Spine J 24:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3542-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mannion AF, Mariaux F, Fekete TF, Kleinstuck F, Jeszenszky D, Köhler M, Haschtmann D, Lurie J, Pearson A, Otten P, Norberg M, Loibl M, Pittet V, Porchet F (2020) A prospective, controlled, multicentre study to evaluate the association between "appropriate use of surgery" and outcome in degenerative spondylolisthesis. In: EUROSPINE, Virtual annual meeting

  14. van Hooff ML, Mannion AF, Staub LP, Ostelo RW, Fairbank JC (2016) Determination of the Oswestry Disability Index score equivalent to a “satisfactory symptom state” in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine-a Spine Tango registry-based study. Spine J 16:1221–1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück F, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: part 1. The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18:367–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V, Dvorak J, Grob D (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 18:374–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Finch WH, Immekus JC, French BF (2016) Equipercentile equating. Applied psychometrics using SPSS and AMOS. Information Age Publishing Inc, Charlotte, NC, pp 251–277

    Google Scholar 

  19. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM (2006) When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1033–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hallgren KA (2012) Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 8:23–34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fekete TF, Loibl M, Jeszenszky D, Haschtmann D, Banczerowski P, Kleinstuck FS, Becker HJ, Porchet F, Mannion AF (2018) How does patient-rated outcome change over time following the surgical treatment of degenerative disorders of the thoracolumbar spine? Eur Spine J 27:700–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5358-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Parai C, Hägg O, Lind B, Brisby H (2019) Follow-up of degenerative lumbar spine surgery-PROMs stabilize after 1 year: an equivalence study based on Swespine data. Eur Spine J 28:2187–2197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-05989-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Artus M, van der Windt DA, Jordan KP, Hay EM (2010) Low back pain symptoms show a similar pattern of improvement following a wide range of primary care treatments: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Rheumatology (Oxford) 49:2346–2356. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keq245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Abdeldaiem A, Saweeres ESB, Shehab-Eldien AA, Mannion AF, Rehan Youssef A (2020) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI-back) in patients with non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J 29:2413–2430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06530-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A, Group SLSS (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JC, Dvorak J, Grob D (2006) Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J 15:55–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mukuria C, Rowen D, Harnan S, Rawdin A, Wong R, Ara R, Brazier J (2019) An updated systematic review of studies mapping (or cross-walking) measures of health-related quality of life to generic preference-based measures to generate utility values. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 17:295–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00467-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Livingston E (2014) Equating test scores (without IRT). Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  29. Streiner DL, Norman GR (1995) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press Inc., Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Parai C, Hagg O, Willers C, Lind B, Brisby H (2020) Characteristics and predicted outcome of patients lost to follow-up after degenerative lumbar spine surgery. Eur Spine J 29:3063–3073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06528-y

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. McClendon MJ, O’’Brien D (1988) Question-order effects on the determinants of subjective well-being. Public Opin Q 52:351–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JCT, Dvorak J, Grob D (2006) Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Eur Spine J 15:55–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the clinical and research staff from all centres participating in the Spine Tango Registry and the European Spine Study Group (ESSG) who contributed data that made possible the analyses carried out in the present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. F. Mannion.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to the presented work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 43 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mannion, A.F., Elfering, A., Fekete, T.F. et al. Development of a mapping function ("crosswalk") for the conversion of scores between the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI). Eur Spine J 31, 3337–3346 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07434-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-022-07434-1

Keywords

Navigation