Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain

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

Abstract

The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is one of the most widely used questionnaires that assess disability in patients with low back pain (LBP). Responsiveness is both an important psychometric property of an instrument and a key issue for clinicians when choosing suitable outcome measures. The objective of this study was to examine the responsiveness of the Chinese version of the ODI (ODI-Chinese) for subjects with chronic LBP following a physical therapy program. In total, 76 patients with chronic LBP completed the ODI-Chinese, a visual analog scale (VAS) of pain, and the Chinese version of Short Form-36 (SF-36) before and after treatment. All patients also completed a global perception of change Likert scale in condition after the program. The scale was collapsed to produce a dichotomous variable outcome, improved or non-improved. The responsiveness of the instruments was determined using the standardized response means (SRM) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC). After treatment, 56 patients considered themselves to be improved. The SRM of the ODI-Chinese was −1.2 in the improved group and −0.4 in the non-improved group. The area of the ROC curve for the ODI-Chinese was 0.77 (95% CI 0.66–0.89). Therefore, the Chinese version of the ODI is both responsive and appropriate for use in chronic LBP patients after conservative therapy.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beaton DE (2000) Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine 25:3192–3199 (PMID: 11124736)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Köke AJ (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76 (PMID: 8826492)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Coelho RA, Siqueira FB, Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML (2008) Responsiveness of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index in subjects with low back pain. Eur Spine J 17:1101–1106. (PMID: 18512083). doi:10.1007/s00586-008-0690-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Costa LO, Maher CG, Latimer J (2007) Self-report outcome measures for low back pain: searching for international cross-cultural adaptations. Spine 32:1028–1037 (PMID: 17450079)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Davidson M, Keating JL (2002) A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 82:8–24 (PMID: 11784274)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Deyo RA, Centor RM (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906 (PMID: 2947907)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O’Brien JP (1980) The Oswestry low back pain questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66:271–273 (PMID: 6450426)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25:2940–2952 (PMID: 11074683)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Frost H, Lamb SE, Stewart-Brown S (2008) Responsiveness of a patient specific outcome measure compared with the Oswestry Disability Index v2.1 and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire for patients with subacute and chronic low back pain. Spine 33:2450–2458 (PMID: 18824951)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vøllestad NK (2004) Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine 29:E492–E501 (PMID: 15507789)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, Taylor DW (1985) Should study subjects see their previous responses? J Chronic Dis 38:1003–1007 (PMID: 4066888)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hashimoto H, Komagata M, Nakai O, Morishita M, Tokuhashi Y, Sano S, Nohara Y, Okajima Y (2006) Discriminative validity and responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index among Japanese outpatients with lumbar conditions. Eur Spine J 15:1645–1650. doi:10.1007/s00586-005-0022-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20. doi:10.1007/s00586-002-0464-0

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jin K, Sorock GS, Courtney T, Liang Y, Yao Z, Matz S, Ge L (2000) Risk factors for work-related low back pain in the People’s Republic of China. Int J Occup Environ Health 6:26–33 (PMID: 10637534)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N (2006) Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 7:82. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu H, Tao H, Luo Z (2009) Validation of the simplified Chinese version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 34:1211–1217 (PMID: 19444069)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Li L, Wang HM, Shen Y (2003) Chinese SF-36 Health Survey: translation, cultural adaptation, validation, and normalization. J Epidemiol Community Health 57:259–263 (PMID: 12646540)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mannion AF, Junge A, Grob D, Dvorak J, Fairbank JC (2006) Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 2. Sensitivity to change after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 15:66–73. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0816-z

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Merkesdal S, Mau W (2005) Prediction of costs-of-illness in patients with low back pain undergoing orthopedic outpatient rehabilitation. Int J Rehabil Res 28:119–126 (PMID: 15900181)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G (1997) Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50:869–879 (PMID: 9291871)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 33:90–94 (PMID: 18165753)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, Fogg AJ (1999) Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine 24:1805–1812 (PMID: 10488511)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vianin M (2008) Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the Oswestry Disability Index. J Chiropr Med 7:161–163 (PMID: 19646379)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN (2003) Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 28:607–615 (PMID: 12642770)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, Brooks P, Tugwell P (2001) Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28:406–412 (PMID:11246688)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No benefits of any form have been received, or will be received from a commercial party related either directly or indirectly to the subjects of this article. No funds were received in support of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pain Treatment Centre of Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 Yanjiang West Road, 510120, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Chao Ma, Shaoling Wu & Lingjun Xiao

  2. Information Department, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Yunlian Xue

Authors
  1. Chao Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaoling Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lingjun Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yunlian Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaoling Wu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ma, C., Wu, S., Xiao, L. et al. Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 20, 475–481 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1624-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1624-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation