Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain

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

Abstract

Purpose

The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a short, multidimensional outcome scale validated for the use by patients with spinal disorders. It is a recommended instrument in the Spine Society of Europe Spine Tango Registry. The purpose of this study was to produce a cross-culturally adapted and validated Polish COMI.

Methods

The cross-cultural adaptation was carried out using the established guidelines. One-hundred and sixty-nine patients with chronic low back pain were enrolled, 89 took part in the reproducibility part of the study. Data quality, construct validity and reproducibility were assessed.

Results

The quality of data was very good with very few missing answers and modest floor effect. Reliability expressed as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.90 (95 % CI 0.85–0.93) for the overall COMI score and for most of the individual core items. The minimum detectable change (MDC95%) was 1.79.

Conclusions

The Polish version of COMI showed a favorable reproducibility similar to that of previously tested language versions. The COMI scores correlated sufficiently with existing measures. This version of the COMI is a valuable instrument for the use by Polish-speaking patients with spinal disorders.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mannion AF, Boneschi M, Teli M, Luca A, Zaina F, Negrini S, Schulz PJ (2011) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1741-6

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(22):2940–2952 (discussion 2952)

  3. Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(24):3115–3124

  4. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL, Williams JI (1995) The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: measurement properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(3):341–352

  5. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 23(18):2003–2013

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Dvorak J, Jacobshagen N, Semmer NK, Boos N (2007) Predictors of multidimensional outcome after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 16(6):777–786. doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0255-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 31(12):1372–1379. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000218477.53318.bc (discussion 1380)

    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(10):1014–1026. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0911-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. White P, Lewith G, Prescott P (2004) The core outcomes for neck pain: validation of a new outcome measure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(17):1923–1930

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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 Suppl 3:374–379. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0931-y

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18 Suppl 3:367–373. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0942-8

    Google Scholar 

  12. Genevay S, Cedraschi C, Marty M, Rozenberg S, De Goumoens P, Faundez A, Balague F, Porchet F, Mannion AF (2012) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 21(1):130–137. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1992-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Damasceno LH, Rocha PA, Barbosa ES, Barros CA, Canto FT, Defino HL, Mannion AF (2011) Cross-cultural adaptation and assessment of the reliability and validity of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the Brazilian-Portuguese language. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2100-3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Storheim K, Brox JI, Lochting I, Werner EL, Grotle M (2012) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2393-x

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fankhauser CD, Mutter U, Aghayev E, Mannion AF (2012) Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck. Eur Spine J 21(1):101–114. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1921-4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(24):3186–3191

  17. COMI back. EuroSpine, the Spine Society of Europe. http://www.eurospine.org/cm_data/SSE_lowback_COMI_E.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2012

  18. Opara J, Szary S, Kucharz E (2006) Polish cultural adaptation of the Roland–Morris Questionnaire for evaluation of quality of life in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(23):2744–2746. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000244632.76447.62

  19. Hyland ME (2003) A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:24. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Andresen EM (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81(12 Suppl 2):S15–S20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR (1995) Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 4(4):293–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Feise RJ, Michael Menke J (2001) Functional rating index: a new valid and reliable instrument to measure the magnitude of clinical change in spinal conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(1):78–86 (discussion 87)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60(1):34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Beaton DE (2000) Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine 25(24):3192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mannion A, 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(1):55–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(24):3100–3103

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N (2006) Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations. Eur Spine J 15(11):1705–1716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Fulton C (1991) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Int J Rehabil Res 14(4):364

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Specialist Medical Center, ul. Jana Pawla II 2, 57-320, Polanica-Zdroj, Poland

    Grzegorz Miekisiak

  2. Department of Pain Research and Treatment, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland

    Marta Kollataj & Jan Dobrogowski

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Pomeranian Traumatology Center, Gdansk, Poland

    Witold Libionka

  4. Department of Neurosurgery, Sokolowski Hospital, Wałbrzych, Poland

    Mariusz Banach

  5. Department of Neurosurgery, Regional Medical Center, Opole, Poland

    Dariusz Latka & Tomasz Sobolewski

  6. Department of Spinal Surgery, University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland

    Adam Sulewski & Andrzej Nowakowski

  7. Department of Neurosurgery, Regional Specialist Hospital, Jastrzebie-Zdroj, Poland

    Grzegorz Kiwic

  8. Spine Department, District Orthopaedic Hospital, Piekary Slaskie, Poland

    Adam Pala

  9. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Jagiellonian University, Zakopane, Poland

    Tomasz Potaczek

  10. Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Varmia and Masuria, Olsztyn, Poland

    Wojciech Kloc

Authors
  1. Grzegorz Miekisiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marta Kollataj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Dobrogowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wojciech Kloc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Witold Libionka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mariusz Banach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dariusz Latka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tomasz Sobolewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Adam Sulewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Andrzej Nowakowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Grzegorz Kiwic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Adam Pala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Tomasz Potaczek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grzegorz Miekisiak.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miekisiak, G., Kollataj, M., Dobrogowski, J. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain. Eur Spine J 22, 995–1001 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2607-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2607-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation