Content and psychometric evaluations of questionnaires for assessing physical function in people with low back disorders. A systematic review of the literature

References

• SBU. Methods for long term pain treatment. Stockholm: The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• IMMPACT. Initiative on methods, measurement, and pain assessment in clinical trials. 2018 [cited 2018 Apr 20]. Available from: http://www.immpact.org/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Wiitavaara B, Heiden M. Content and psychometric evaluations of questionnaires for assessing physical function in people with neck disorders: a systematic review of the literature. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40:2227–2235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leahy E, Davidson M, Benjamin D, et al. Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires for people with pain in any spine region. A systematic review. Man Ther. 2016;22:22–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine. 1998;23:2003–2013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Functional status and disability questionnaires: what do they assess? A systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires. Spine. 2005;30:130–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Short version. 2001 [cited 2018 Apr 20]. Available from: https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/publikationer2003/2003-4-2
   Google Scholar
• WHO. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health, ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. 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. 2010;19:539–549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10;22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, et al. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Heymans MW, et al. Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:659–670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink A. Conducting research literature reviews. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications Inc.; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22:1435–1443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okochi J, Utsunomiya S, Takahashi T. Health measurement using the ICF: test-retest reliability study of ICF codes and qualifiers in geriatric care. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kurtaiş Y, Őztuna D, Küçükdeveci AA, et al. Reliability, construct validity and measurement potential of the ICF comprehensive core set for osteoarthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aljunied M, Frederickson N. Utility of the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) for educational psychologists’ work. Educ Psychol Pract. 2014;30:380–392.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. HCW dV. COSMIN checklist manual. 2012 [cited 2017 May 11]. Available from: http://www.cosmin.nl/images/upload/files/COSMIN%20checklist%20manual%20v9.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Atlas SJ, Deyo RA, van den Ancker M, et al. The Maine-Seattle back questionnaire: a 12-item disability questionnaire for evaluating patients with lumbar sciatica or stenosis: results of a derivation and validation cohort analysis. Spine. 2003;28:1869–1876.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bendebba M, Dizerega GS, Long DM. The Lumbar Spine Outcomes Questionnaire: its development and psychometric properties. Spine J. 2007;7:118–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjorklund M, Hamberg J, Heiden M, et al. The assessment of symptoms and functional limitations in low back pain patients: validity and reliability of a new questionnaire. Eur Spine J. 2007;16:1799–1811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolton JE, Breen AC. The Bournemouth Questionnaire: a short-form comprehensive outcome measure. I. Psychometric properties in back pain patients. Journal of Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22:503–510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson M, Keating JL, Eyres S. A low back-specific version of the SF-36 Physical Functioning scale. Spine. 2004;29:586–594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, et al. The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine. 1996;21:741–749.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duruoz MT, Ozcan E, Ketenci A, et al. Development and validation of a functional disability index for chronic low back pain. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2013;26:45–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairbank JC. Why are there different versions of the Oswestry Disability Index? J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20:83–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford JJ, Story I, McMeeken J. The test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the Subjective Complaints Questionnaire for low back pain. Man Ther. 2009;14:283–291.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, et al. Japanese Orthopaedic Association back pain evaluation questionnaire. Part 2. Verification of its reliability: the subcommittee on low back pain and cervical myelopathy evaluation of the clinical outcome committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association. J Orthop Sci. 2007;12:526–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabel CP, Melloh M, Burkett B, et al. The Spine Functional Index: development and clinimetric validation of a new whole-spine functional outcome measure. Spine J. 2013. DOI:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.09.055
   Google Scholar
• Greenough CG, Fraser RD. Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine. 1992;17:36–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper AC, Harper DA, Lambert LJ, et al. Development and validation of the Curtin Back Screening Questionnaire (CBSQ): a discriminative disability measure. Pain. 1995;60:73–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, et al. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: conceptualization and development. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:151–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manniche C, Asmussen K, Lauritsen B, et al. Low Back Pain Rating scale: validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain. Pain. 1994;57:317–326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams NH, Wilkinson C, Russell IT. Extending the Aberdeen Back Pain Scale to include the whole spine: a set of outcome measures for the neck, upper and lower back. Pain. 2001;94:261–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82:8–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demoulin C, Ostelo R, Knottnerus JA, et al. Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale was responsive and showed reasonable interpretability after a multidisciplinary treatment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1249–1255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81:776–788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukui M, Chiba K, Kawakami M, et al. Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire. Part 3. Validity study and establishment of the measurement scale: subcommittee on Low Back Pain and Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Japan. J Orthop Sci. 2008;13:173–179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine. 2004;29:E492–E501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart DL, Stratford PW, Werneke MW, et al. Lumbar computerized adaptive test and Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire: relative validity and important change. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:541–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt AE, Shaw NJ, Shetty A, et al. The reliability of the Low Back Outcome Score for back pain. Spine. 2002;27:206–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, et al. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morlock RJ, Nerenz DR. The SC. The NASS lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: large sample assessment and sub-scale identification. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2002;16:63–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newell D, Bolton JE. Responsiveness of the Bournemouth questionnaire in determining minimal clinically important change in subgroups of low back pain patients. Spine. 2010;35:1801–1806.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, et al. Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine. 1999;24:1805–1812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aghayev E, Elfering A, Schizas C, et al. Factor analysis of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument: a study based on a spine registry of patients treated with lumbar and cervical disc arthroplasty. Spine J. 2014;14:916–924.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang P, Zhang J, Liao W, et al. Content comparison of questionnaires and scales used in low back pain based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:1167–1177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oner FC, Jacobs WC, Lehr AM, et al. Toward the development of a universal outcome instrument for Spine Trauma: a systematic review and content comparison of outcome measures used in Spine Trauma research using the ICF as reference. Spine. 2016;41:358–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigl T, Cieza A, Brockow T, et al. Content comparison of low back pain-specific measures based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Clin J Pain. 2006;22:147–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Brockow T, Ewert T, et al. Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. J Rehabil Med. 2002;34:205–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, et al. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37:212–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar