Exploration of the validity and reliability of the “backache disability index” (BADIX) in patients with non-specific low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In clinical examinations of a patient with non-specific low back pain (LBP), there is a need to dispose over a valid and quick to perform rating system. The "Backache Disability Index" for LBP or BADIX includes rating of 5 trunk movements in erect position and a "Morning Back Stiffness" score, whereof the sum gives the BADIX (max. 20 points). The objective of this study was to explore the reliability, responsiveness and concurrent validity of the BADIX. Patients with LBP (n=100) were randomly assigned into a "control" group (n=40) in function of validity studies, and a "treatment" group (n=60) in function of responsiveness studies. The treatment group underwent two weekly sessions of in total 30 minutes of deep cross-friction on the thoraco-lumbar Erector spinae and gluteals. All patients completed the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire validated Dutch version (ODQ), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). The impairment examination consists, besides current orthopaedic and neurologic examinations, of the new BADIX scoring system. RESULTS: In our study the retest reliability after 3 days of the BADIX was perfect (n=039, r=0.95). A good correlation (p < 0.001) was found between BADIX at baseline, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (n=93, r=0.76), and McGill-Quality of Life Index (r=0.74). Similar discriminative ability and effect size of measures was found for BADIX and ODI (n=54). It is proposed that the minimal detectable change should be equal or more than 2 points. CONCLUSIONS: The "Backache Disability Index" appears to be a reliable and a valid assessment tool of morning stiffness and restricted spinal movements, and discriminates between successful and unsuccessful treatment outcome. The BADIX will allow patients to take snapshots of their daily treatment evolution, save them on their computer or tablets (apps) and share the results with their doctors and/or therapists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".