The Italian version of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in patients with chronic low back pain

Monticone, Marco; Frigau, Luca; Molà, Francesco; Rocca, Barbara; Franchignoni, Franco; Vullo, Salvatore Simone; Foti, Calogero; Chiarotto, Alessandro

doi:10.1007/s00586-019-06153-4

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• the standard error of measurement (sEM) based on the following equation, with the icc 2.1 value taken from test-retest results of a previous reliability study on the same sample: 12 EuropEaN JourNal of physical aNd rEhabilitatioN MEdiciNE June 2022 score, 103 participants (51%) were classified as improved (GPE=2 or 3) and 78 (39%) as stable (GPE=0 or 1). The remaining 20 (10%) showed a worsened clinical condition according to their GpE change score (<0) and were excluded from further analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 the italian version of the Qbpds has been psychometrically analyzed in patients with chronic lbp. 12 factor analysis suggested a one-factor 20-item structure (first factor variance explained of 54.7%), and the tool was found to have similar properties to those of the original version: 3 internal consistency of 0.95, test-retest reliability of 0.90, and good construct validity, showing moderate correlations with the roland Morris disability Questionnaire (r=0.40), the oswestry disability index (r=0.48), and a pain numerical rating scale (r=0.44). 12 however, its responsiveness and Mic have not yet been determined, therefore limiting its use for research and clinical purposes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…outpatients consecutively admitted to physical and rehabilitation units at the university hospital in cagliari (italy), and at the university hospital in rome tor Vergata (italy) were enrolled between september 2016 and July 2018. 12 the inclusion criteria were: a diagnosis of chronic non-specific LBP (i.e. documented history of pain lasting for more than twelve weeks), 15 good understanding of italian language, and an age of >18 years.…”

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability (ICC 2.1 ) 12 indexes for Qbpds are shown in table iii, along with the related distribution-based indices for responsiveness.…”

Section: 6±132)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Responsiveness and Minimal Important Change of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale in Italian patients with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation

Monticone¹,

Arippa²,

Foti³

et al. 2022

Eur J Phys Rehabil Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

bacKGrouNd: there is still a lack of information concerning Minimal important change (Mic) of the Quebec back pain disability scale (Qbpds), that limits its use for clinical and research purposes. aiM: Evaluating responsiveness and Mic of the Qbpds in italians with chronic low back pain (lbp). dEsiGN: this is a methodological research based on an observational study. sEttiNG: outpatient rehabilitation hospital. populatioN: two hundred and one patients with chronic lbp. MEthods: at the beginning and end of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program, patients completed the Qbpds. at the end of treatment, they completed a 7-level global perceived effect (GpE) scale, which was split to obtain a dichotomous outcome (improved vs. stable). responsiveness was calculated by distribution-based (effect size [Es]; standardized response mean [srM]; minimum detectable change [Mdc 95 ]) and anchor-based methods (receiver operating characteristics [roc] curves). roc curves were also used to compute the Mic (based on Qbpds change score, both absolute and expressed as percentage). correlations between the change score of the Qbpds and GpE were calculated. rEsults: the Es was 0.29, the srM was 0.43, and the Mdc 95 was 12 points. roc analysis of the absolute change scores showed a Mic value of 6 points, with an area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.90), 77.7% and 80.8%, respectively. ROC analysis based on the percent change score from baseline revealed a MIC of 18% with an AUC, sensitivity and specificity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.91), 80.6% and 80.8%, respectively. Correlation between change score of the QBPDS and GPE was ρ=-0.67. coNclusioNs: the Qbpds score change (expressed in both absolute value and percentage from baseline) was sensitive in detecting clinical changes in italian subjects with chronic lbp undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. in clinical practice, where absolute change is lower than Mdc we recommend to rely on the Mic taking into account the percentage change from baseline condition. cliNical rEhabilitatioN iMpact: the present study investigated the responsiveness and Mic of the Qbpds in a group of patients with chronic LBP. Our findings showed that the QBPDS score may classify with good to excellent discriminatory accuracy subjects who consider themselves as improved. Where examining change, we recommend considering both Mics we provided (expressing score change both in absolute value and as a percentage from baseline), and disregard values lower than Mdc 95 , not being discernible from measurement error.(Cite this article as: Monticone M, arippa f, foti c, franchignoni f. responsiveness and minimal important change of the Quebec back pain disability scale in italian patients with chronic low back pain undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cronbach's α and test-retest reliability (ICC 2.1 ) 12 indexes for Qbpds are shown in table iii, along with the related distribution-based indices for responsiveness.…”

Section: 6±132)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations