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

Abstract

Purpose

To cross-culturally adapt the Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI-back) for the Arabic language and to test its reliability and validity in Egyptian patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP).

Methods

COMI-back was translated and cross-culturally adapted into Arabic according to standard guidelines. Its construct validity was assessed in 85 patients with chronic LBP (mean (± SD) age, 41.1 (± 10.4) years and 65/85 (76.5%) female) who completed a booklet of questionnaires including the Arabic versions of COMI-back, Roland Morris disability questionnaire, Oswestry disability index, the short form health survey 36, and the visual analogue scale for back pain. Test–retest reliability was assessed in 52 participants who completed the booklet again within 7 days.

Results

Floor effects (worst status; 1.2–10.6%) and ceiling effects (best status; 1.2–11.8%) for COMI-back were acceptable, except for symptom-specific well-being (18.8%, floor), leg pain (23.5%, ceiling), and work disability (31.8%, ceiling). The COMI item scores correlated with those of the reference questionnaires (ρ = 0.45–0.88) to the hypothesized extent, except for the COMI symptom-specific well-being (ρ = 0.16–0.17) and quality of life (ρ = 0.38). The intra-class correlation coefficient for the summary score was 0.90, whereas that of the individual items ranged from 0.71–0.92. The standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change for the summary score were 0.51 and 1.41 points, respectively. The predefined hypotheses for construct validity and reliability were largely confirmed.

Conclusion

The Arabic version of COMI-back represents a valid and reliable instrument for use in Arabic-speaking patients with non-specific LBP.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain: part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8:141–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Mannion A, Porchet F, Kleinstu F et al (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: The Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 18:367–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0942-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Röder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF et al (2005) SSE Spine Tango—content, workflow, set-up. Eur Spine J 14:920–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1023-2

  5. 5.

    Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R et al (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-0911-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ferrer M, Pellisé F, Escudero O et al (2006) Validation of a minimum outcome core set in the evaluation of patients with back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1372–1379. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000218477.53318.bc

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Matsudaira K, Oka H, Oshima Y et al (2018) Development of the Japanese Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI): cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19:71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1986-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kim H-J, Yeom JS, Nam Y et al (2018) Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Korean version of the Core Outcome Measures Index in patients with degenerative lumbar disease. Eur Spine J 27:2804–2813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5759-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Cetin E, Celik EC, Acaroglu E, Berk H (2018) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Turkish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain. Eur Spine J 27:93–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5329-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Granstrom H, Langborg A, Mannion AF, Rasmussen-Barr E (2020) Cross-cultural adaption and validation of the Swedish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low-back pain. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06271-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Damasceno LHF, Rocha PAG, Barbosa ES 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. Eur Spine J 21:1273–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2100-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Genevay S, Cedraschi C, Marty M 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. Eur Spine J 21:130–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1992-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mannion AF, Boneschi M, Teli M et al (2012) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 21:737–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1741-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Storheim K, Brox JI, Lochting I et al (2012) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Norwegian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain. Eur Spine J 21:2539–2549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2393-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Qiao J, Zhu F, Zhu Z et al (2013) Validation of the simplified Chinese version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI). Eur Spine J 22:2821–2826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2761-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Miekisiak G, Kollataj M, Dobrogowski J et al (2013) 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2607-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Klemencsics I, Lazary A, Valasek T et al (2016) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Hungarian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI Back). Eur Spine J 25:257–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3750-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Van Lerbeirghe J, Van Lerbeirghe J, Van Schaeybroeck P et al (2018) 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5255-8

    Article  PubMed  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 (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3186–3191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Maki D, Rajab E, Watson PJ, Critchley DJ (2014) Cross-cultural translation, adaptation, and psychometric testing of the Roland–Morris disability questionnaire into modern standard Arabic. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39:E1537–E1544. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Algarni AS, Ghorbel S, Jones JG, Guermazi M (2014) Validation of an Arabic version of the Oswestry index in Saudi Arabia. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 57:653–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2014.06.006

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    RAND Corporation (1997) 36-Item Short Form Survey from the RAND Medical Outcomes Study. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hays RD, Morales LS (2001) The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Ann Med 33:350–357. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002089

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Laucis NC, Hays RD, Bhattacharyya T (2015) Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: a brief guide. J Bone Jt Surg Am 97:1628–1634. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.O.00030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Nevill AM, Lane AM, Kilgour LJ et al (2001) Stability of psychometric questionnaires. J Sports Sci 19:273–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404101750158358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Costa LOP, Maher CG, Latimer J (2007) Self-report outcome measures for low back pain: searching for international cross-cultural adaptations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:1028–1037. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000261024.27926.0f

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41:582–592. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Post MWM (2014) Definitions of quality of life: what has happened and how to move on. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 20:167–180. https://doi.org/10.1310/sci2003-167

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Ferrans CE (1990) Quality of life: conceptual issues. Semin Oncol Nurs 6:248–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-2081(90)90026-2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Ferrans CE, Powers MJ (1985) Quality of life index: development and psychometric properties. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 8:15–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198510000-00005

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ferrans CE, Powers MJ (1992) Psychometric assessment of the quality of life index. Res Nurs Health 15:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770150106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS et al (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0931-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Mr. Mohammed Gumaa, TRUST Research Center, for his help in statistical analysis. RAND healthcare for permitting the use of RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 that was developed as part of the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) (https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/mos/36-item-short-form/survey-instrument.html). The Arabic version of the Oswestry Disability Index [(ODI©), obtained by a permission from Mapi Research Trust, https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org), license 5533, August 2017).

Funding

None.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aliaa Rehan Youssef.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The protocol for this study was approved by the institutional Ethics committee (P.T.REC/012/001677) and was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03328806).

Informed consent

All participants received a full verbal explanation of the study purpose and procedures and signed a written informed consent form.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 117 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdeldaiem, A., Saweeres, E.S.B., Shehab-Eldien, AE.AE. et al. 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 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06530-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Low back pain
  • Patient-reported outcome measures
  • COMI
  • Psychometric properties