MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336018145 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20150420

Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index: Which Has Better Measurement Properties for Measuring Physical Functioning in Nonspecific Low Back Pain? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016· review· en· W2336018145 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersKoninklijk Nederlands Genootschap voor Fysiotherapie
KeywordsOswestry Disability IndexMeta-analysisPhysical therapyLow back painMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical functioning is a core outcome domain to be measured in nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). A panel of experts recommended the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to measure this domain. The original 24-item RMDQ and ODI 2.1a are recommended by their developers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the 24-item RMDQ or the ODI 2.1a has better measurement properties than the other to measure physical functioning in adult patients with NSLBP. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar), references of existing reviews, and citation tracking were the data sources. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers selected studies performing a head-to-head comparison of measurement properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of the 2 questionnaires. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of these studies. DATA EXTRACTION: The studies' characteristics and results were extracted by 2 reviewers. A meta-analysis was conducted when there was sufficient clinical and methodological homogeneity among studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine articles were included, for a total of 11 studies assessing 5 measurement properties. All studies were classified as having poor or fair methodological quality. The ODI displayed better test-retest reliability and smaller measurement error, whereas the RMDQ presented better construct validity as a measure of physical functioning. There was conflicting evidence for both instruments regarding responsiveness and inconclusive evidence for internal consistency. LIMITATIONS: The results of this review are not generalizable to all available versions of these questionnaires or to patients with specific causes for their LBP. CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing head-to-head comparison studies, there are no strong reasons to prefer 1 of these 2 instruments to measure physical functioning in patients with NSLBP, but studies of higher quality are needed to confirm this conclusion. Foremost, content, structural, and cross-cultural validity of these questionnaires in patients with NSLBP should be assessed and compared.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it