Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Dutch version of the core outcome measures index for low back pain

Abstract

Purpose

The core outcome measures index (COMI) is a validated multidimensional instrument for assessing patient-reported outcome in patients with back problems. The aim of the present study is to translate the COMI into Dutch and validate it for use in native Dutch speakers with low back pain.

Methods

The COMI was translated into Dutch following established guidelines and avoiding region-specific terminology. A total of 89 Dutch-speaking patients with low back pain were recruited from 8 centers, located in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. Patients completed a questionnaire booklet including the validated Dutch version of the Roland Morris disability questionnaire, EQ-5D, the WHOQoL-Bref, the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, and the Dutch translation of the COMI. Two weeks later, patients completed the Dutch COMI translation again, with a transition scale assessing changes in their condition.

Results

The patterns of correlations between the individual COMI items and the validated reference questionnaires were comparable to those reported for other validated language versions of the COMI. The intraclass correlation for the COMI summary score was 0.90 (95% CI 0.84–0.94). It was 0.75 and 0.70 for the back and leg pain score, respectively. The minimum detectable change for the COMI summary score was 1.74. No significant differences were observed between repeated scores of individual COMI items or for the summary score.

Conclusion

The reproducibility of the Dutch translation of the COMI is comparable to that of other validated spine outcome measures. The COMI items correlate well with the established item-specific scores. The Dutch translation of the COMI, validated by this work, is a reliable and valuable tool for spine centers treating Dutch-speaking patients and can be used in registries and outcome studies.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Adjustments to validated Dutch translation: Q2: ‘Ergste pijn die ik mij kan voorstellen’ instead of ‘Ergste pijn die u zich kan voorstellen’; Q4: ‘Enigszins tevreden/ontevreden’ instead of ‘Tevreden/Ontevreden’; Q5: ‘Als u aan de afgelopen week terugdenkt, hoe zou u uw levenskwaliteit inschatten/beoordelen?’ instead of ‘Hoe zou u uw levenskwaliteit van de afgelopen week inschatten/beoordelen?’; Q7: ‘Hoeveel dagen van de laatste 4 weken heeft uw rugprobleem u belet om te werken?’ instead of ‘Hoeveel dagen van de laatste 4 weken kon u niet werken omwille van uw rugprobleem?’

References

  1. 1.

    Hoy D, Brooks P, Blyth F, Buchbinder R (2010) The epidemiology of low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 24:769–781

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Woolf AD, Pfleger B (2003) Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 81:646–656

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Mannion AF, Balague F, Pellise F, Cedraschi C (2007) Pain measurement in patients with low back pain. Nature Clin Pract Rheumatol 3:610–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Resnik L, Dobrzykowski E (2003) Guide to outcomes measurement for patients with low back pain syndromes. J Orth Sports Phys Ther 33:307–316 (discussion 17-8)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B et al (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 23:2003–2013

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer NK et al (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? ESJ 14:1014–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 31:1372–1379 (discussion 1380)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, Lattig F, Jeszenszky D, Bartanusz V et al (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: the core outcome measures index in clinical practice. ESJ 18(Suppl 3):S367–S373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Mannion P et al (2009) Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the core outcome measures index. ESJ 18(Suppl 3):S374–S379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Mannion AF, Boneschi M, Teli M, Luca A, Zaina F, Negrini S et al (2012) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the core outcome measures index. ESJ 21(Suppl 6):S737–S749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Genevay S, Cedraschi C, Marty M, Rozenberg S, De Goumoens P, Faundez A et al (2012) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted French version of the core outcome measures index (COMI) in patients with low back pain. ESJ 21:130–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Qiao J, Zhu F, Zhu Z, Xu L, Wang B, Yu Y et al (2013) Validation of the simplified Chinese version of the core outcome measures index (COMI). ESJ 22:2821–2826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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. ESJ 21:2539–2549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Miekisiak G, Kollataj M, Dobrogowski J, Kloc W, Libionka W, Banach M et al (2013) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Polish version of the core outcome measures index for low back pain. ESJ 22:995–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Klemencsics I, Lazary A, Valasek T, Szoverfi Z, Bozsodi A, Eltes P et al (2016) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Hungarian version of the core outcome measures index for the back (COMI back). ESJ 25:257–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Damasceno LH, Rocha PA, Barbosa ES, Barros CA, Canto FT, Defino HL et al (2012) Cross-cultural adaptation and assessment of the reliability and validity of the core outcome measures index (COMI) for the Brazilian-Portuguese language. ESJ 21:1273–1282

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Roder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF, Grob D, Aebi M (2005) SSE Spine Tango–content, workflow, set-up. www.eurospine.org-Spine Tango. ESJ 14:920–924

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Brouwer S, Kuijer W, Dijkstra PU, Goeken LN, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JH (2004) Reliability and stability of the Roland Morris disability questionnaire: intra class correlation and limits of agreement. Disabil Rehabil 26:162–165

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Trompenaars FJ, Masthoff ED, Van Heck GL, Hodiamont PP, De Vries J (2005) Content validity, construct validity, and reliability of the WHOQoL-Bref in a population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients. Qual Life Res 14:151–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    EuroQol Group (2014) EQ-5D-3L official translation in Dutch for use in Belgium. http://www.euroqol.org/eq-5d-products/eq-5d-3l.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2016

  23. 23.

    The Whoqol Group (1998) The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQoL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 46:1569–1585

  24. 24.

    Hyland ME (2003) A brief guide to the selection of quality of life instrument. Health Qual Live Outcomes 1:24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidem 60:34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Mannion AF, Vila-Casademunt A, Domingo-Sàbat M, Wunderlin S, Pellisé F, Bago J, Acaroglu E, Alanay A, Pérez-Grueso FS, Obeid I, Kleinstück FS, European Spine Study Group (ESSG) (2016) The core outcome measures index (COMI) is a responsive instrument for assessing the outcome of treatment for adult spinal deformity. ESJ 25(8):2638–2648

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    van Hooff ML, Spruit M, Fairbank JC et al (2015) The oswestry disability index (version 2.1a): validation of a Dutch language version. Spine 40(2):pE83–pE90

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Van Lerbeirghe.

Ethics declarations

Funding

There was no funding for this study and the authors declare to have no financial relations of any kind related to the subject of this study.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 34 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Lerbeirghe, J., Van Lerbeirghe, J., Van Schaeybroeck, P. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Dutch version of the core outcome measures index for low back pain. Eur Spine J 27, 76–82 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5255-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Low back pain
  • Core outcome measures index
  • Questionnaire
  • Cross-cultural adaptation
  • Dutch