Cut-off values of and factors associated with a negative influence on Neck Disability Index

  • Shin Oe
  • Daisuke Togawa
  • Go Yoshida
  • Tomohiko Hasegawa
  • Yu Yamato
  • Tatsuya Yasuda
  • Tomohiro Banno
  • Hideyuki Arima
  • Yuki Mihara
  • Hiroki Ushirozako
  • Yukihiro Matsuyama
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The Neck Disability Index (NDI) is used to evaluate patients with cervical spine disease. However, few reports have defined the cut-off values of the NDI. The purpose of this study was to identify the cut-off values of and factors with a negative impact on NDI.

Methods

A total of 487 volunteers were divided into three groups based on disability: none, mild, and disabled. The cut-off values of the NDI were determined using receiver-operating characteristic curves. After these groups were divided based on sex and age adjustment was performed, the factors with a negative impact on NDI were investigated using multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results

Groups none, mild, and disabled included 207, 186, and 94 volunteers, respectively. The cut-off values of the NDI in each group were 0–5, 6–17, and ≥ 18%, respectively. After adjusting for age, groups none, mild, and disabled had 65, 56, and 23 males, respectively, and 92, 103, and 56 females, respectively. In multiple logistic regression analysis, the factors with a negative impact on NDI in males were manual work (odds ratio [OR] 1.924), higher T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (OR 1.043), and higher C2-7 sagittal vertical axis (OR 1.029, P < 0.05). Among females, the factors were hand-grip strength (OR 0.936), body fat percentage (OR 0.942), and sporting activity (OR 0.456, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Deterioration in NDI was associated with cervical spinal malalignment and manual labor in males and lack of physical activity and sarcopenia in females.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Keywords

Neck Disability Index Cut-off value Cervical spinal alignment Sarcopenia Manual worker 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Shin Oe and Daisuke Togawa belong to donated fund laboratory called Division of Geriatric Musculoskeletal Health.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Shizuoka, Japan.

Supplementary material

586_2018_5555_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (157 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 156 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Picavet HS, Schouten JS (2003) Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: prevalences, consequences and risk groups, the DMC(3)-study. Pain 102:167–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kato S, Takeshita K, Matsudaira K et al (2012) Normative score and cut-off value of the Neck Disability Index. J Orthop Sci 17:687–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fejer R, Kyvik KO, Hartvigsen J (2006) The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J 15:834–848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luime JJ, Kuiper JI, Koes BW et al (2004) Work-related risk factors for the incidence and recurrence of shoulder and neck complaints among nursing-home and elderly-care workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 30:279–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pietri-Taleb F, Riihimäki H, Viikari-Juntura E et al (1994) Longitudinal study on the role of personality characteristics and psychological distress in neck trouble among working men. Pain 58:261–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viikari-Juntura E, Takala E, Riihimäki H et al (2000) Predictive validity of symptoms and signs in the neck and shoulders. J Clin Epidemiol 53:800–808CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Croft PR, Lewis M, Papageorgiou AC et al (2001) Risk factors for neck pain: a longitudinal study in the general population. Pain 93:317–325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cassou B, Derriennic F, Monfort C et al (2002) Chronic neck and shoulder pain, age, and working conditions: longitudinal results from a large random sample in France. Occup Environ Med 59:537–544CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yalcinkaya H, Ucok K, Ulasli AM et al (2017) Do male and female patients with chronic neck pain really have different health-related physical fitness, depression, anxiety and quality of life parameters? Int J Rheum Dis 20:1079–1087CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Webb R, Brammah T, Lunt M et al. (2003) Prevalence and predictors of intense, chronic, and disabling neck and back pain in the UK general population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1195–1202Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vernon H, Mior S (1991) The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manip Physiol Ther 14:409–415Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCarthy MJ, Grevitt MP, Silcocks P et al (2007) The reliability of the Vernon and Mior Neck Disability Index, and its validity compared with the short form-36 health survey questionnaire. Eur Spine J 16:2111–2117CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jorritsma W, de Vries GE, Dijkstra PU et al (2012) Neck pain and disability scale and Neck Disability Index: validity of Dutch language versions. Eur Spine J 21:93–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Croft AC, Workman JA, Szatalowicz MP et al (2016) Classifying whiplash recovery status using the Neck Disability Index: optimized cutoff points derived from receiver operating characteristic. J Chiropr Med 15:95–101CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oe S, Togawa D, Nakai K et al. (2015) The influence of age and sex on cervical spinal alignment among volunteers aged over 50. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:1487–1494Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iyer S, Nemani VM, Nguyen J et al. (2016) Impact of cervical sagittal alignment parameters on neck disability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:371–377Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Genant HK, Wu CY, van Kuijik C et al (1993) Vertebral fractures assessment using a semiquantitative technique. JBone Miner Res 8:1137–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ritchie JD, Miller CK, Smiciklas-Wright H (2005) Tanita foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis system validated in older adults. J Am Diet Assoc 105:1617–1619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Banno T, Togawa D, Arima H et al (2016) The cohort study for the determination of reference values for spinopelvic parameters (T1 pelvic angle and global tilt) in elderly volunteers. Eur Spine J 25:3687–3693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen Y, Luo J, Pan Z et al. (2017) The change of cervical spine alignment along with aging in asymptomatic population: a preliminary analysis. Eur Spine J.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5209-1
  21. 21.
    Xing R, Liu W, Li X et al (2018) Characteristics of cervical sagittal parameters in healthy cervical spine adults and patients with cervical disc degeneration. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19:37.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1951-8 PMID: 29390994 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM et al (2010) Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 39:412–423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ris I, Søgaard K, Gram B et al (2016) Does a combination of physical training, specific exercises and pain education improve health-related quality of life in patients with chronic neck pain? A randomised control trial with a 4-month follow up. Man Ther 26:132–1340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shin Oe
    • 1
  • Daisuke Togawa
    • 1
  • Go Yoshida
    • 2
  • Tomohiko Hasegawa
    • 2
  • Yu Yamato
    • 2
  • Tatsuya Yasuda
    • 3
  • Tomohiro Banno
    • 2
  • Hideyuki Arima
    • 2
  • Yuki Mihara
    • 2
  • Hiroki Ushirozako
    • 2
  • Yukihiro Matsuyama
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Division of Geriatric Musculoskeletal HealthHamamatsu University School of MedicineHamamatsuJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryHamamatsu University School of MedicineHamamatsuJapan
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryHamamatsu Medical CenterHamamatsuJapan

Personalised recommendations