Correlation between the Oswestry Disability Index and objective measurements of walking capacity and performance in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic literature review
The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) plays a significant role in lumbar spinal stenosis research and is used to assess patient’s walking limitations. The World Health Organisation describes the constructs of walking capacity and performance and recommend measuring both to fully describe patient’s walking ability. Objective methods to assess walking capacity and performance is being investigated and used alongside the traditional use of PROs. This review of the literature was made to provide an overview of relations between the ODI and outcome measures of walking capacity and performance in spinal stenosis research, and to provide a strategy for improving such measures in future research.
The review was conducted according to the Prisma Statement. In February 2017, a search was performed in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane database. Authors independently screened articles by title, abstract, and full text, and studies were included if both authors agreed. Articles with correlation analysis between the ODI, walking capacity and performance measures by accelerometer or GPS were included.
The results support a correlation between the ODI and walking capacity measures. The available studies using ODI and accelerometers were too few to reach a conclusion regarding correlation between ODI and walking performance. No articles with GPS measure were identified.
The ODI should not stand alone when evaluating walking limitations in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. To enable a comprehensive assessment of walking ability, a walking test should be used to assess walking capacity and accelerometers should be investigated and standardized in measuring walking performance.
KeywordsLumbar spinal stenosis The Oswestry Disability Index Walking capacity Walking performance WHO
This review has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 2.Ammendolia C, Stuber K, Tomkins-Lane C, Schneider M, Rampersaud YR, Furlan AD, Kennedy CA (2014) What interventions improve walking ability in neurogenic claudication with lumbar spinal stenosis? A systematic review. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 23:1282–1301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3262-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Organisation WH (2003) ICF Checklist. In: Version 21a, Clinician FormGoogle Scholar
- 6.Organisation WH (2002) Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health ICFGoogle Scholar
- 14.Welk GJ (2002) Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
- 20.Stemland I, Ingebrigtsen J, Christiansen CS, Jensen BR, Hanisch C, Skotte J, Holtermann A (2015) Validity of the Acti4 method for detection of physical activity types in free-living settings: comparison with video analysis. Ergonomics 58:953–965. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.998724 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.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 Off J N Am Spine Soc 8:968–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2007.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Sinikallio S, Aalto T, Airaksinen O, Herno A, Kroger H, Savolainen S, Turunen V, Viinamaki H (2007) Lumbar spinal stenosis patients are satisfied with short-term results of surgery—younger age, symptom severity, disability and depression decrease satisfaction. Disabil Rehabil 29:537–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280600902646 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Kellar SP, Kelvin EA, Munro BH (2012) Munro’s statistical methods for health care research. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 41.Domholdt E (1993) Physical therapy research: principles and applications. W. B. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 43.Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2010) The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 19:539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (2017) Diagnostic study appraisal worksheet. https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM_Diagnostic-study-appraisal-worksheet.doc. Accessed 14 Aug 2017
- 47.Rainville J, Childs LA, Pena EB, Suri P, Limke JC, Jouve C, Hunter DJ (2012) Quantification of walking ability in subjects with neurogenic claudication from lumbar spinal stenosis—a comparative study. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc 12:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2011.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Barz T, Melloh M, Staub L, Roeder C, Lange J, Smiszek FG, Theis JC, Merk HR (2008) The diagnostic value of a treadmill test in predicting lumbar spinal stenosis. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 17:686–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0593-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Schulte TL, Schubert T, Winter C, Brandes M, Hackenberg L, Wassmann H, Liem D, Rosenbaum D, Bullmann V (2010) Step activity monitoring in lumbar stenosis patients undergoing decompressive surgery. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deform Soc Eur Sect Cerv Spine Res Soc 19:1855–1864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1324-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 55.Aalto TJ, Malmivaara A, Kovacs F, Herno A, Alen M, Salmi L, Kroger H, Andrade J, Jimenez R, Tapaninaho A, Turunen V, Savolainen S, Airaksinen O (2006) Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review. Spine 31:E648–E663. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000231727.88477.da CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 56.Papadakis NC, Christakis DG, Tzagarakis GN, Chlouverakis GI, Kampanis NA, Stergiopoulos KN, Katonis PG (2009) Gait variability measurements in lumbar spinal stenosis patients: part A. Comparison with healthy subjects. Physiol Meas 30:1171–1186. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/30/11/003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 59.de Schepper EIT, Overdevest GM, Suri P, Peul WC, Oei EHG, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Luijsterburg PAJ (2013) Diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis: an updated systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Spine 38:E469–E481. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828935ac CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 62.Del Din S, Godfrey A, Rochester L (2016) Validation of an accelerometer to quantify a comprehensive battery of gait characteristics in healthy older adults and Parkinson’s disease: toward clinical and at home use. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 20:838–847. https://doi.org/10.1109/jbhi.2015.2419317 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 63.Gernigon M, Le Faucheur A, Fradin D, Noury-Desvaux B, Landron C, Mahe G, Abraham P (2015) Global positioning system use in the community to evaluate improvements in walking after revascularization: a prospective multicenter study with 6-month follow-up in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Medicine 94:e838. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000000838 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar