Patient-reported outcome measures for non-specific neck pain validated in the Italian-language: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures can improve the management of patients with non-specific neck pain. The choice of measure greatly depends on its content and psychometric properties. Most questionnaires were developed for English-speaking people, and need to undergo cross-cultural validation for use in different language contexts. To help Italian clinicians select the most appropriate tool, we systematically reviewed the validated Italian-language outcome measures for non-specific neck pain, and analyzed their psychometric properties and clinical utility.MethodsThe search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. All articles published in English or Italian regarding the development, translation, or validation of patient-reported outcome measures available in the Italian language were included. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the COSMIN checklist.ResultsOut of 4891articles screened, 66 were eligible. Overall, they were of poor or fair methodological quality. Four instruments measuring function and disability (Neck Disability Index, Neck Pain and Disability Scale, Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire, and Core Outcome Measures Index), and one measuring activity-related fear of movement (NeckPix©) were identified. Each scale showed some psychometric weaknesses or problems with functioning, and none emerged as a gold standard.ConclusionsSeveral patient-reported outcome measures are now available for assessing Italian people with non-specific neck pain. While the Neck Disability Index is the one most widely used, the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire appears the most promising tool from a psychometric point of view.

Validation of the Nepali versions of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for Neck Pain

“… 10 , 31 , 32 The psychometric properties of the NDI in the present study are generally in line with most previous studies. 8 – 24 Internal consistency was acceptable (0.70), but lower than in other reports, 9 reporting a Cronbach alpha between 0.74 14 and 0.92. 17 Previous test–retest NDI ICC estimates range from 0.85 18 to 0.98 22 , compared to 0.97 in the present study.…”

Development, validity and reliability of the Italian version of the Copenhagen neck functional disability scale

“…The very high correlation between CNFDS-I and NDI-I (ρ = 0.846) suggests that the theoretical construct of these two instruments may be very similar [ 32 ]. We chose the NDI as a comparative questionnaire because it is the most validated and internationally used [ 15 , 40 ]. The correlation between the total scores of CNFDS-I and NBQ-I was high too (ρ = 0.708).…”

Floor and ceiling effects of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain

“…Floor and ceiling effects are common findings when measuring functioning restrictions amongst people with musculoskeletal disorders (McHorney et al, 1994, Pellicciari et al, 2016. Modest to substantial ceiling effects have been found for the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF -36) in chronic medical and psychiatric conditions (McHorney et al, 1994).…”