Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Changes in Iranian People with Lumbar Disc Herniation Following Physiotherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The present study aimed to investigate the responsiveness of the Persian version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) and detect minimal clinically important changes (MCICs) of these questionnaires in people with lumbar disc herniation. Methods: Ninety-two patients with lumbar herniated disc completed the Persianversion of the ODI, RMDQ, and QBPDS before and after the physiotherapy intervention. Additionally, they completed a global rating of change scale after the final physiotherapy session to give an account of non-improved and improved outcomes. The responsiveness of these three disability questionnaires was represented by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and correlation analyses. The MCIC was defined as the best cut-off when sensitivity and specificity were optimally balanced. Results: Area under the ROC curves are in the acceptable range for ODI and QBPDS (0.78 and 0.70, respectively). Moreover, ODI, RMDQ, and QBPDS have significant positive fair to moderate correlation with the external anchor (P<0.001). The MCIC values for ODI, RMDQ, and QBPDS were 13, 5.5, and 14.5 points, respectively. Conclusion: Our results revealed that the ODI and QBPDS questionnaires have adequate responsiveness to detect improvements in the functional status of lumbar herniated disc patients following a physiotherapy treatment. Therefore, the ODI and QBPDS seem to be superior to the RMDQ for use in randomized clinical trials and clinical settings in patients with herniated lumbar discs. The MCIC scores of 13 and 14.5 obtained for the ODI and QBPDS can help to identify important changes in the clinical status of an individual patient and treatment efficacy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".