Assessing Back Pain: Does the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire Accurately Measure Function in Ankylosing Spondylitis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) can be used to assess the degree of pain or disability in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: The ODQ was administered to a cohort of patients with AS. The resulting pain scores were correlated to the conventional measures in AS, the Bath AS Disease Activity Index and Functional Index (BASDAI and BASFI), as well as the Total and Nocturnal Back Pain scores, and the patient global assessment score. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients with AS were assessed (38 men, 11 women), mean age 40 years (range 17-68). The mean ODQ score was 40/100 (range 0-92), the mean BASDAI 3.7/10 (range 0-9.5), the mean BASFI 3.3/10 (range 0-9.7), the mean total back pain score 3.7/10 (range 0-10), and the mean patient global assessment score 3.6/10 (range 0-10). Correlation between the ODQ and the traditional AS outcome measures was very good, with a correlation coefficient of r = 0.73 (BASFI) and r = 0.70 (BASDAI). Correlations between the ODQ and the total back pain score (r = 0.70) and the patient self-reported global assessment (r = 0.61) were good. CONCLUSION: The strong correlations between the ODQ and BASFI and BASDAI indicate that it identifies both activity and function domains in AS. This is the first demonstration of a role for this outcome measure in the assessment of patients with AS.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".