Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 2: sensitivity to change after spinal surgery

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

Abstract

When functional scales are to be used as treatment outcome measures, it is essential to know how responsive they are to clinical change. This information is essential not only for clinical decision-making, but also for the determination of sample size in clinical trials. The present study examined the responsiveness of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index version 2.1 (ODI) after surgical treatment for low back pain. Before spine surgery 63 patients completed a questionnaire booklet containing the ODI, along with a 0–10 pain visual analogue scale (VAS), the Roland Morris disability questionnaire, and Likert scales for disability, medication intake and pain frequency. Six months after surgery, 57 (90%) patients completed the same questionnaire booklet and also answered Likert-scale questions on the global result of surgery, and on improvements in pain and disability. Both the effect size for the ODI change score 6 months after surgery (0.87) and the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the relative improvement in ODI score in relation to global outcome 6 months after surgery (0.90) indicated that the ODI showed good responsiveness. The ROC method revealed that a minimum reduction of the baseline (pre-surgery) ODI score by 18% (equal to a mean 8-point reduction in this patient group) represented the cut-off for indicating a “good” individual outcome 6 months after surgery (sensitivity 91.4% and specificity 82.4%). The German version of the ODI is a sensitive instrument for detecting clinical change after spinal surgery. Individual improvements after surgery of at least an 18% reduction on baseline values are associated with a good outcome. This figure can be used as a reliable guide for the determination of sample size in future clinical trials of spinal surgery.

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. Altman DG, Bland JM (1994) Statistics notes: diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic plots. BMJ 309:188

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25:3186–3191

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Köke AJ, van der Heijden GJ, Knipschild PG (1995) Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires. Spine 20:1017–1028

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beurskens AJHM, de Vet HCW, Köke (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bhandari M, Lochner H, Tornetta P 3rd (2002) Effect of continuous versus dichotomous outcome variables on study power when sample size of orthopaedic randomised trials are small. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 122:96–98

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bombardier C (2000) Outcome Assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders. Summary and general recommendations. Spine 25:3100–3103

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boscainos PJ, Sapkas G, Stilianessi E, Prouskas K, Papadakis SA (2003) Greek versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris disability questionnaires. Clin Orthop 411:40–53

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. Davis TT, Delamarter RB, Sra P, Goldstein TB (2004) The IDET procedure for chronic discogenic low back pain. Spine 29:752–756

    Google Scholar 

  10. Deyi BA, Kosinski AS, Snapinn SM (1998) Power considerations when a continuous outcome variable is dichotomised. J Biopharm Stat 8:337–352

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJHM, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 23:2003–2013

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Google Scholar 

  13. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12(Suppl):142–158

    Google Scholar 

  14. Exner V, Keel P (2000) Erfassung der Behinderung bei Patienten mit chronischen Rückenschmerzen. Schmerz 14:392–400

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry disability index. Spine 25:2940–2952

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ (2001) A comparison of a modified Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther 81:776–788

    Google Scholar 

  18. Goldsmith C, Boers M, Bombardier C, Tugwell P (1993) Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. J Rheumatol 20:561–565

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK (2003) Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disablity index. J Rehabil Med 35:241–247

    Google Scholar 

  20. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1417–1432

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hagg A, Fritzell P, Oden A, Nordwall A (2002) Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Spine 27:1213–1222

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hagg 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

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hopkins WG (2000) Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kirschner, Guyatt A (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 38:27–36

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mannion AF, Junge A, Fairbank JCT, Dvorak J, Grob D (2005) Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reability, and validity. Eur Spine J. DOI 10.1007/s00586-004-0815-0

    Google Scholar 

  26. Meade T, Browne W, Mellows S et al. (1986) Comparison of chiropractic and outpatient management of low back pain: a feasibility study. J Epidemiol Commun Health 40:12–17

    Google Scholar 

  27. Roland M, Fairbank J (2000) The Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine 25:3115–3124

    Google Scholar 

  28. Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8:141–144

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Gill C, FInch E (1994) Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther 74:528–533

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stratford PW, Spadoni G, Kennedy D, Westaway MD, Alcock GK (2002) Seven points to consider when investigating a measure‘s ability to detect change. Physiother Can Winter 2002:16–24

    Google Scholar 

  31. Vickers AJ (2001) The use of percentage change from baseline as an outcome in a controlled trial is statistically inefficient: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodo 1(1):1–6 (Epub: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/1471/1476

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Gordana Balaban, Simon Smit and Katrin Knecht for the administration of the questionnaires. The study was funded by the Schulthess Klinik Research Funds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Schulthess Klinik, Lengghalde 2, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland

    A. F. Mannion, A. Junge, D. Grob & J. Dvorak

  2. Department Rheumatology and Institute of Physical Medicine, University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland

    A. F. Mannion & A. F. Mannion

  3. Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, UK

    J. C. T. Fairbank

Authors
  1. A. F. Mannion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Junge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Grob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Dvorak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. C. T. Fairbank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. F. Mannion.

Additional information

Part 1 of this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0815-0

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mannion, A.F., Junge, A., Grob, D. et al. Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 2: sensitivity to change after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 15, 66–73 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0816-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0816-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation