A Systematic Review of Head-to-Head Comparison Studies of the Roland-Morris and Oswestry Measures' Abilities to Assess Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if the sensitivity to change of Roland-Morris Questionnaire (RMQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores differ when applied to patients with low back pain (LBP). A secondary purpose was to critique the methodological rigour of the identified head-to-head comparison studies. METHODS: A systematic review of five online databases was performed to locate head-to-head comparison studies of the RMQ and the ODI that assessed the sensitivity to change of the two measures. Studies were eligible if they met a pre-determined set of inclusion criteria. A newly developed quality criteria form was used to evaluate the methodological rigour of head-to-head comparison studies. RESULTS: Nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Although there was a statistically significant difference in favour of the RMQ for two studies, there was no apparent consistent advantage of one measure over the other. Frequent methodological deficiencies included no formal sample size calculation, no formal between-measure comparison, and no independent reference standard. CONCLUSION: There was no consistent evidence supporting one measure over the other. Many studies displayed methodological deficiencies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".