• J Clin Epidemiol · Mar 2018

    Review

    A systematic review highlights the need to investigate the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures for physical functioning in patients with low back pain.

    • Alessandro Chiarotto, Raymond W Ostelo, Maarten Boers, and Caroline B Terwee.
    • Department of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.chiarotto@vu.nl.
    • J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Mar 1; 95: 73-93.

    ObjectivesTo summarize the evidence on content and structural validity of 17 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to measure physical functioning in patients with low back pain (LBP).Study Design And SettingMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, and Google Scholar were searched (February 2017). Records on development and studies assessing content validity or unidimensionality in patients with LBP were included. Two reviewers defined eligible studies and assessed their methodological quality with updated Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments standards. Evidence was synthesized for three separate aspects of content validity: relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, and for unidimensionality, a modified GRADE approach was applied to evidence synthesis.ResultsHigh-quality evidence showed that 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ-24) is a comprehensible but not comprehensive PROM. Low to very low quality evidence underpinned the content validity of the other PROMs. Unidimensionality was: sufficient for Brief Pain Inventory pain interference subscale (moderate quality evidence); inconsistent for RMDQ-23, Oswestry Disability Index 2.1a (ODI 2.1a), and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (moderate quality); insufficient for RMDQ-24, ODI 1.0, and RMDQ-18 (high quality) and Short Form 36 physical functioning subscale (SF36-PF, moderate quality).ConclusionThe content validity of PROMs to measure physical functioning in patients with LBP is understudied. Structural validity of several widely used PROMs is problematic.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…