Advertisement

Measures in Chiropractic Research: Choosing Patient-Based Outcome Assessments

      Abstract

      Objective

      Outcome assessment normally used in research can support the therapeutic process by tracking patient symptoms and function and offering a common language to clinicians and researchers. This study's objectives were to (1) identify patient-based outcomes assessments used in published chiropractic studies, (2) describe a framework for identifying appropriate sets of measures, and (3) address the challenges associated with these measures relevant to chiropractic.

      Methods

      This literature review identified and evaluated the most commonly used to outcome measures in chiropractic research. Instruments were evaluated in terms of feasibility, practicality, economy, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change. A search of PubMed and Index to Chiropractic Literature (from inception to June 2006) was performed.

      Results

      A total of 1166 citations were identified. Of these, 629 were selected as relevant. The most common patient-based outcomes assessments instruments identified were the Oswestry Pain/Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and Short Form 36.

      Conclusions

      The integration of outcome measures is consistent with current national initiatives to enhance health care quality through performance measurement and can also be used to further the field of chiropractic health care research. Outcome measures are both a research tool and a means by which providers can consistently measure health care quality. Based upon this review, there is a wide range of outcome measures available for use in chiropractic care. Those most commonly cited in the literature are the numeric rating scale, Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Pain/Disability Index, Roland-Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire, and Short Form 36.

      Key Indexing Terms

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Wood-Dauphinee S
        Assessing quality of life in clinical research: from where have we come and where are we going?.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52: 355-363
        • Pigou AC
        The economics of welfare.
        Mac-Millan, London1920
        • Coons SJ
        • Rao S
        • Keininger DL
        • Hays RD
        A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments.
        Pharmacoeconomics. 2000; 17: 13-35
        • Govern F
        U.S. health policy and problem definition: a policy process adrift. Xlibris Corporation, Philadelphia2000
        • Coulter ID
        The development of health-related quality of life measures at RAND.
        in: Mullen EJ Magnabosco J Outcomes measurement in the human services. National Association of Social Workers Press, Washington, DC1997: 209-218
        • Greenfield S
        • Nelson EC
        Recent developments and future issues in the use of health status assessment measures in clinical settings.
        Med Care. 1992; 30: MS23-MS41
        • Ware JE
        Scales for measuring general health perceptions.
        Health Serv Res. 1976; 11: 396-415
      1. Brook RH, Ware JE, Davies-Avery A, et al. Overview of adult health measures fielded in Rand's health insurance study. Med Care 1979;17(7 Suppl):iii-x, 1-131.

        • Katz JN
        • Larson MG
        • Phillips CB
        • Fossel AH
        • Liang MH
        Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments.
        Med Care. 1992; 30: 917-925
        • Nelson EC
        • Berwick DM
        The measurement of health status in clinical practice.
        Med Care. 1989; 27: 577-590
        • Ware JE
        • Brook RH
        • Davies AR
        • Lohr KN
        Choosing measures of health status for individuals in general populations.
        Am J Public Health. 1981; 71: 620-625
        • Wollersheim H
        • Hermens R
        • Hulscher M
        • et al.
        Clinical indicators: development and applications.
        Neth J Med. 2007; 65: 15-22
        • Patrick DL
        • Deyo RA
        Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life.
        Med Care. 1989; 27: S217-S232
        • Liang M.H.
        • Shadick N.
        Feasibility and utility of adding disease-specific outcome measures to administrative databases to improve disease management.
        Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127: 739-742
        • Huskisson EC
        Measurement of pain.
        Lancet. 1974; 2: 1127-1131
        • Levine JD
        • Gordon NC
        • Fields HL
        The mechanism of placebo analgesia.
        Lancet. 1978; 2: 654-657
        • Levine JD
        • Gordon NC
        • Jones RT
        • Fields HL
        The narcotic antagonist naloxone enhances clinical pain.
        Nature. 1978; 272: 826-827
        • Price DD
        • McGrath PA
        • Rafii A
        • Buckingham B
        The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain.
        Pain. 1983; 17: 45-56
        • Scott J
        • Huskisson EC
        Graphic representation of pain.
        Pain. 1976; 2: 175-184
        • Revill SI
        • Robinson JO
        • Rosen M
        • Hogg MI
        The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain.
        Anaesthesia. 1976; 31: 1191-1198
        • Scott J
        • Huskisson EC
        Vertical or horizontal visual analogue scales.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 1979; 38: 560
        • Sriwatanakul K
        • Kelvie W
        • Lasagna L
        • Calimlim JF
        • Weis OF
        • Mehta G
        Studies with different types of visual analog scales for measurement of pain.
        Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1983; 34: 234-239
        • Bolton JE
        • Wilkinson RC
        Responsiveness of pain scales: a comparison of three pain intensity measures in chiropractic patients.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998; 21: 1-7
        • Kelly AM
        Does the clinically significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores vary with gender, age, or cause of pain?.
        Acad Emerg Med. 1998; 5: 1086-1090
        • Kelly AM
        The minimum clinically significant difference in visual analogue scale pain score does not differ with severity of pain.
        Emerg Med J. 2001; 18: 205-207
        • McCormack HM
        • Horne DJ
        • Sheather S
        Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review.
        Psychol Med. 1988; 18: 1007-1019
        • Lukacz ES
        • Lawrence JM
        • Burchette RJ
        • Luber KM
        • Nager CW
        • Buckwalter JG
        The use of Visual Analog Scale in urogynecologic research: a psychometric evaluation.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191: 165-170
        • Elkins G
        • Staniunas R
        • Rajab MH
        • Marcus J
        • Snyder T
        Use of a numeric visual analog anxiety scale among patients undergoing colorectal surgery.
        Clin Nurs Res. 2004; 13: 237-244
        • Bijur PE
        • Latimer CT
        • Gallagher EJ
        Validation of a verbally administered numerical rating scale of acute pain for use in the emergency department.
        Acad Emerg Med. 2003; 10: 390-392
        • Karoly P
        • Jensen MP
        Multimethod assessment of chronic pain.
        Pergamon Press, Oxford1987
        • Downie WW
        • Leatham PA
        • Rhind VM
        • Wright V
        • Branco JA
        • Anderson JA
        Studies with pain rating scales.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 1978; 37: 378-381
        • Jensen MP
        • McFarland CA
        Increasing the reliability and validity of pain intensity measurement in chronic pain patients.
        Pain. 1993; 55: 195-203
        • McCaffery M
        • Pasero C
        Pain: clinical manual. 2nd ed. Mosby, Inc, St. Louis1999
        • Jensen MP
        • Karoly P
        • Braver S
        The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods.
        Pain. 1986; 27: 117-126
        • Childs JD
        • Piva SR
        • Fritz JM
        Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain.
        Spine. 2005; 30: 1331-1334
        • Melzack R
        The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods.
        Pain. 1975; 1: 277-299
        • Melzack R
        The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire.
        Pain. 1987; 30: 191-197
        • Lowe NK
        • Walker SN
        • MacCallum RC
        Confirming the theoretical structure of the McGill Pain Questionnaire in acute clinical pain.
        Pain. 1991; 46: 53-60
        • Byrne M
        • Troy A
        • Bradley LA
        • et al.
        Cross-validation of the factor structure of the McGill Pain Questionnaire.
        Pain. 1982; 13: 193-201
        • Dudgeon D
        • Raubertas RF
        • Rosenthal SN
        The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire in chronic cancer pain.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 1993; 8: 191-195
        • Grafton KV
        • Foster NE
        • Wright CC
        Test-retest reliability of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire: assessment of intraclass correlation coefficients and limits of agreement in patients with osteoarthritis.
        Clin J Pain. 2005; 21: 73-82
        • Katz J
        • Melzack R
        Measurement of pain.
        Surg Clin North Am. 1999; 79: 231-252
        • Melzack R
        • Katz J
        The McGill Pain Questionnaire: appraisal and current status.
        in: Turk DC Melzack R Handbook of pain measurement. 2nd ed. Guilford Press, New York2001: 35-52
        • Truong PT
        • Abnousi F
        • Yong CM
        • et al.
        Standardized assessment of breast cancer surgical scars integrating the Vancouver Scar Scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and patients' perspectives.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005; 116: 1291-1299
        • Scrimshaw SV
        • Maher C
        Responsiveness of visual analogue and McGill pain scale measures.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001; 24: 501-504
      2. Comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management of low back pain: a feasibility study. Report of a working group.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 1986; 40: 12-17
        • Davidson M
        Rasch analysis of three versions of the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
        Man Ther. 2007;
        • Roland M
        • Fairbank J
        The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 3115-3124
        • Fairbank JC
        • Couper J
        • Davies JB
        • O'Brien JP
        The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire.
        Physiotherapy. 1980; 66: 271-273
        • Baker DJ
        • Pynsent PB
        • Fairbank JCT
        The Oswestry Disability Index revisited: its reliability, repeatability and validity, and a comparison with the St-Thomas's Disability Index.
        in: Roland M Jenner JR Back pain: new approaches to rehabilitation and education. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK1989: 174-186
        • Assendelft WJ
        • Bouter LM
        • Kessels AG
        Effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy in the treatment of low back pain: a critical discussion of the British Randomized Clinical Trial.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991; 14: 281-286
        • Meade TW
        • Dyer S
        • Browne W
        • Townsend J
        • Frank AO
        Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment.
        BMJ. 1990; 300: 1431-1437
        • Gronblad M
        • Hupli M
        • Wennerstrand P
        • et al.
        Intercorrelation and test-retest reliability of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with pain intensity in low back pain patients.
        Clin J Pain. 1993; 9: 189-195
        • Beurskens AJ
        • de Vet HC
        • Koke AJ
        Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.
        Pain. 1996; 65: 71-76
        • Anagnostis C
        • Gatchel RJ
        • Mayer TG
        The pain disability questionnaire: a new psychometrically sound measure for chronic musculoskeletal disorders.
        Spine. 2004; 29 ([discussion 2303]): 2290-2302
        • Bolton JE
        • Fish RG
        Responsiveness of the Revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
        Eur J Chiropr. 1997; 45: 9-14
        • Davidson M
        • Keating JL
        A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness.
        Phys Ther. 2002; 82: 8-24
        • Fairbank JC
        The use of revised Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 2846-2847
        • Triano JJ
        • McGregor M
        • Cramer GD
        • Emde DL
        A comparison of outcome measures for use with back pain patients: results of a feasibility study.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1993; 16: 67-73
        • Leclaire R
        • Blier F
        • Fortin L
        • Proulx R
        A cross-sectional study comparing the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Functional Disability scales in two populations of patients with low back pain of different levels of severity.
        Spine. 1997; 22: 68-71
        • Co YY
        • Eaton S
        • Maxwell MW
        The relationship between the St. Thomas and Oswestry disability scores and the severity of low back pain.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1993; 16: 14-18
        • Jensen MP
        • Strom SE
        • Turner JA
        • Romano JM
        Validity of the Sickness Impact Profile Roland scale as a measure of dysfunction in chronic pain patients.
        Pain. 1992; 50: 157-162
        • Roland M
        • Morris R
        A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.
        Spine. 1983; 8: 141-144
        • Chansirinukor W
        • Maher CG
        • Latimer J
        • Hush J
        Comparison of the functional rating index and the 18-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: responsiveness and reliability.
        Spine. 2005; 30: 141-145
        • Vernon H
        • Mior S
        The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991; 14: 409-415
        • Riddle DL
        • Stratford PW
        Use of generic versus region-specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders.
        Phys Ther. 1998; 78: 951-963
        • Stewart M
        • Maher CG
        • Refshauge KM
        • Bogduk N
        • Nicholas M
        Responsiveness of pain and disability measures for chronic whiplash.
        Spine. 2007; 32: 580-585
        • Pietrobon R
        • Coeytaux RR
        • Carey TS
        • Richardson WJ
        • DeVellis RF
        Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction: a systematic review.
        Spine. 2002; 27: 515-522
        • Hains F
        • Waalen J
        • Mior S
        Psychometric properties of the neck disability index.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998; 21: 75-80
        • Pollard CA
        Preliminary validity study of the pain disability index.
        Percept Mot Skills. 1984; 59: 974
        • Tait RC
        • Pollard CA
        • Margolis RB
        • Duckro PN
        • Krause SJ
        The Pain Disability Index: psychometric and validity data.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987; 68: 438-441
        • Jerome A
        • Gross RT
        Pain disability index: construct and discriminant validity.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1991; 72: 920-922
        • Tait RC
        • Chibnall JT
        • Krause S
        The Pain Disability Index: psychometric properties.
        Pain. 1990; 40: 171-182
        • Gronblad M
        • Jarvinen E
        • Hurri H
        • Hupli M
        • Karaharju EO
        Relationship of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) with three dynamic physical tests in a group of patients with chronic low-back and leg pain.
        Clin J Pain. 1994; 10: 197-203
        • Gronblad M
        • Lukinmaa A
        • Konttinen YT
        Chronic low-back pain: intercorrelation of repeated measures for pain and disability.
        Scand J Rehabil Med. 1990; 22: 73-77
        • Cleland JA
        • Fritz JM
        • Whitman JM
        • Palmer JA
        The reliability and construct validity of the Neck Disability Index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy.
        Spine. 2006; 31: 598-602
        • Bolton JE
        • Breen AC
        The Bournemouth Questionnaire: a short-form comprehensive outcome measure. I. Psychometric properties in back pain patients.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999; 22: 503-510
        • Bolton JE
        • Humphreys BK
        The Bournemouth Questionnaire: a short-form comprehensive outcome measure. II. Psychometric properties in neck pain patients.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002; 25: 141-148
        • Larsen K
        • Leboeuf-Yde C
        The Bournemouth Questionnaire: can it be used to monitor and predict treatment outcome in chiropractic patients with persistent low back pain?.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005; 28: 219-227
        • Hartvigsen J
        • Lauridsen H
        • Ekstrom S
        • et al.
        Translation and validation of the danish version of the Bournemouth questionnaire.
        J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005; 28: 402-407
        • Ware JE
        • Sherbourne CD
        The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.
        Med Care. 1992; 30: 473-483
        • Hays RD
        • Sherbourne CD
        • Mazel RM
        The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0.
        Health Econ. 1993; 2: 217-227
        • Gandek B
        • Ware JE
        • Aaronson NK
        • et al.
        Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the SF-36 in eleven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1149-1158
        • Garratt AM
        • Ruta DA
        • Abdalla MI
        • Buckingham JK
        • Russell IT
        The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS?.
        BMJ. 1993; 306: 1440-1444
        • McHorney CA
        • Ware JE
        • Raczek AE
        The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs.
        Med Care. 1993; 31: 247-263
        • Stewart WJ
        Effects of undrugged partners on scopolamine-induced changes in activity and sociability.
        Psychopharmacol Commun. 1976; 2: 131-139
        • Ware JE
        • Kosinski M
        • Gandek B
        • et al.
        The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1159-1165
        • Kazis LE
        • Lee A
        • Spiro A
        • et al.
        Measurement comparisons of the medical outcomes study and veterans SF-36 health survey.
        Health Care Financ Rev. 2004; 25: 43-58
        • Dougherty CM
        • Dewhurst T
        • Nichol WP
        • Spertus J
        Comparison of three quality of life instruments in stable angina pectoris: Seattle Angina Questionnaire, Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and Quality of Life Index-Cardiac Version III.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 569-575
        • Walters SJ
        • Munro JF
        • Brazier JE
        Using the SF-36 with older adults: a cross-sectional community-based survey.
        Age Ageing. 2001; 30: 337-343
        • Hawk C
        • Dusio M
        • Wallace H
        • Bernard T
        • Rexroth C
        Instrument evaluation: a study of the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a self-administered instrument to measure global well-being.
        Palmer Journal of Research. 1995; 2: 15-22
        • Farrar JT
        • Young JP
        • LaMoreaux L
        • Werth JL
        • Poole RM
        Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale.
        Pain. 2001; 94: 149-158
        • Norton PA
        • Zinner NR
        • Yalcin I
        • Bump RC
        Duloxetine versus placebo in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 40-48
        • Schneider LS
        • Olin JT
        Clinical global impressions in Alzheimer's clinical trials.
        Int Psychogeriatr. 1996; 8 ([discussion 288-290]): 277-288
        • Studenski S
        • Hayes RP
        • Leibowitz RQ
        • et al.
        Clinical Global Impression of Change in Physical Frailty: development of a measure based on clinical judgment.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004; 52: 1560-1566
        • Yalcin I
        • Bump RC
        Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189: 98-101
        • Turk DC
        • Dworkin RH
        What should be the core outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials?.
        Arthritis Res Ther. 2004; 6: 151-154
        • Price DD
        • Bush FM
        • Long S
        • Harkins SW
        A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales.
        Pain. 1994; 56: 217-226
        • Price DD
        • Harkins SW
        The combined use of visual analogue scales and experimental pain in providing standardized assessment of clinical pain.
        Clin J Pain. 1987; 3: 3-11
        • Flaherty SA
        Pain measurement tools for clinical practice and research.
        AANA J. 1996; 64: 133-140
        • Wewers ME
        • Lowe NK
        A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena.
        Res Nurs Health. 1990; 13: 227-236
        • Bieri D
        • Reeve R
        • Champion GD
        • Addicoat L
        • Ziegler J
        The Faces Pain Scale for the self-assessment of the severity of pain experienced by children: Development, initial validation and preliminary investigation for ratio scale properties.
        Pain. 1990; 41: 139-150
        • Wong D
        • Baker C
        Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales.
        Pediatr Nurs. 1988; 14: 9017
        • Lund I
        • Lundeberg T
        • Sandberg L
        • Budh CN
        • Kowalski J
        • Svensson E
        Lack of interchangeability between visual analogue and verbal rating pain scales: a cross sectional description of pain etiology groups.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5: 31
        • Reading AE
        A comparison of the McGill Pain Questionnaire in chronic and acute pain.
        Pain. 1982; 13: 185-192
        • Olsen S
        • Nolan MF
        • Kori S
        Pain measurement. An overview of two commonly used methods.
        Anesthesiol Rev. 1992; 19: 11-15
        • Peat G
        PPA recommendations for low back pain-related functional limitation outcome measures.
        The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, London2004
        • Fairbank JC
        • Pynsent PB
        The Oswestry Disability Index.
        Spine. 2000; 25 ([discussion 2952]): 2940-2952
        • Suarez-Almazor ME
        • Kendall C
        • Johnson JA
        • Skeith K
        • Vincent D
        Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments.
        Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000; 39: 783-790
        • Daltroy LH
        • Cats-Baril WL
        • Katz JN
        • Fossel AH
        • Liang MH
        The North American Spine Society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: reliability and validity tests.
        Spine J. 1996; 21: 741-749
        • Hudson-Cook N
        • Tomes-Nicholson K
        • Breen A
        A revised Oswestry disability questionnaire.
        in: Roland M Jenner JR Back pain: new approaches to rehabilitation and education. Manchester University Press, Manchester1989: 187-204
        • Grotle M
        • Brox JI
        • Vollestad NK
        Functional status and disability questionnaires: what do they assess? A systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires.
        Spine. 2005; 30: 130-140
        • Kopec JA
        Measuring functional outcomes in persons with back pain.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 3110-3114
        • Ohnmeiss DD
        Oswestry back pain disability questionnaire.
        in: Gatchel RJ Compendium of outcome instruments for assessment and research of spinal disorders. North American Spine Society, Lagrange (Ill)2000: 52-54
        • Fisher K
        • Johnson M
        Validation of the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire, its sensitivity as a measure of change following treatment and its relationship with other aspects of the chronic pain experience.
        Physiotherapy. 1997; 13: 67-80
        • Ohnmeiss DD
        • Vanharanta H
        • Estlander AM
        • Jamsen A
        The relationship of disability (Oswestry) and pain drawings to functional testing.
        Eur Spine J. 2000; 9: 208-212
        • Gilson BS
        • Gilson JS
        • Bergner M
        • et al.
        The sickness impact profile. Development of an outcome measure of health care.
        Am J Public Health. 1975; 65: 1304-1310
        • Bergner M
        • Bobbitt RA
        • Carter WB
        • Gilson BS
        The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure.
        Med Care. 1981; 19: 787-805
        • Atlas SJ
        • Deyo RA
        • van den Ancker M
        • Singer DE
        • Keller RB
        • Patrick DL
        The Maine-Seattle back questionnaire: a 12-item disability questionnaire for evaluating patients with lumbar sciatica or stenosis: results of a derivation and validation cohort analysis.
        Spine. 2003; 28: 1869-1876
        • Underwood MR
        • Barnett AG
        • Vickers MR
        Evaluation of two time-specific back pain outcome measures.
        Spine. 1999; 24: 1104-1112
        • Dionne CE
        • Koepsell TD
        • Von Korff M
        • Deyo RA
        • Barlow WE
        • Checkoway H
        Predicting long-term functional limitations among back pain patients in primary care settings.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50: 31-43
        • Patrick DL
        • Deyo RA
        • Atlas SJ
        • Singer DE
        • Chapin A
        • Keller RB
        Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica.
        Spine. 1995; 20 ([discussion 1909]): 1899-1908
        • Stratford PW
        • Binkley JM
        Measurement properties of the RM-18. A modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Scale.
        Spine. 1997; 22: 2416-2421
        • Symonds TL
        • Burton AK
        • Tillotson KM
        • Main CJ
        Absence resulting from low back trouble can be reduced by psychosocial intervention at the work place.
        Spine. 1995; 20: 2738-2745
        • Stroud MW
        • McKnight PE
        • Jensen MP
        Assessment of self-reported physical activity in patients with chronic pain: development of an abbreviated Roland-Morris disability scale.
        J Pain. 2004; 5: 257-263
        • Crane PK
        • Cetin K
        • Cook KF
        • Johnson K
        • Deyo R
        • Amtmann D
        Differential item functioning impact in a modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.
        Qual Life Res. 2007;
        • Hermann KM
        • Reese CS
        Relationships among selected measures of impairment, functional limitation, and disability in patients with cervical spine disorders.
        Phys Ther. 2001; 81: 903-914
        • Hoving JL
        • Koes BW
        • de Vet HC
        • et al.
        Manual therapy, physical therapy, or continued care by a general practitioner for patients with neck pain. A randomized, controlled trial.
        Ann Intern Med. 2002; 136: 713-722
        • Hoving JL
        • O'Leary EF
        • Niere KR
        • Green S
        • Buchbinder R
        Validity of the neck disability index, Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire, and problem elicitation technique for measuring disability associated with whiplash-associated disorders.
        Pain. 2003; 102: 273-281
        • Wlodyka-Demaille S
        • Poiraudeau S
        • Catanzariti JF
        • Rannou F
        • Fermanian J
        • Revel M
        The ability to change of three questionnaires for neck pain.
        Joint Bone Spine. 2004; 71: 317-326
        • Chibnall JT
        • Tait RC
        The Pain Disability Index: factor structure and normative data.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994; 75: 1082-1086
        • Tibbles AC
        • Waalen JK
        • Hains F
        Response set bias, internal consistency and construct validity of the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire.
        JCCA. 1998; 42: 141-149
        • Fritz JM
        • Irrgang JJ
        A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale.
        Phys Ther. 2001; 81: 776-788
        • Riddle DL
        • Stratford PW
        • Binkley JM
        Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2.
        Phys Ther. 1998; 78: 1197-1207
        • Stratford PW
        • Binkley JM
        • Riddle DL
        • Guyatt GH
        Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1.
        Phys Ther. 1998; 78: 1186-1196
        • Fishman B
        • Pasternak S
        • Wallenstein SL
        • Houde RW
        • Holland JC
        • Foley KM
        The Memorial Pain Assessment Card. A valid instrument for the evaluation of cancer pain.
        Cancer. 1987; 60: 1151-1158
        • Cleeland CS
        • Ryan KM
        Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory.
        Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994; 23: 129-138
        • Daut RL
        • Cleeland CS
        The prevalence and severity of pain in cancer.
        Cancer. 1982; 50: 1913-1918
        • Kerns RD
        • Turk DC
        • Rudy TE
        The West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (WHYMPI).
        Pain. 1985; 23: 345-356
        • Gracely RH
        • Kwilosz DM
        The Descriptor Differential Scale: applying psychophysical principles to clinical pain assessment.
        Pain. 1988; 35: 279-288
        • Galer BS
        • Jensen MP
        Development and preliminary validation of a pain measure specific to neuropathic pain: the Neuropathic Pain Scale.
        Neurology. 1997; 48: 332-338
        • Jensen MP
        • Gammaitoni AR
        • Olaleye DO
        • Oleka N
        • Nalamachu SR
        • Galer BS
        The pain quality assessment scale: assessment of pain quality in carpal tunnel syndrome.
        J Pain. 2006; 7: 823-832
        • Ware JE
        The SF-36 Health Survey.
        in: Spilker B Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics. 2nd ed. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia (Pa)1996: 337-345
        • Ware JE
        • Gandek B
        Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 903-912
        • Hays RD
        • Morales LS
        The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life.
        Ann Med. 2001; 33: 350-357
        • Ware JE
        • Kosinski M
        • Bayliss MS
        • McHorney CA
        • Rogers WH
        • Raczek A
        Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study.
        Med Care. 1995; 33: AS264-AS279
        • Ware JE
        The status of health assessment 1994.
        Annu Rev Public Health. 1995; 16: 327-354
        • Huskisson EC
        Visual analog scales.
        in: Melzack R Pain measurement and assessment. Raven Press, New York1983: 33-37
        • Maxwell C
        Sensitivity and accuracy of the visual analogue scale: a psycho-physical classroom experiment.
        Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1978; : 15-24
        • McDowell I
        • Newwell C
        Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires.
        Oxford University Press, New York1987
        • Rice AS
        • Maton S
        Gabapentin in postherpetic neuralgia: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study.
        Pain. 2001; 94: 215-224
      3. Guy W. ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology. Rockville (Md): National Institute of Mental Health, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1976:218-22.

        • Tan G
        • Jensen MP
        • Thornby JI
        • Shanti BF
        Validation of the brief pain inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain.
        J Pain. 2004; 5: 133-137
        • Caraceni A
        • Cherny N
        • Fainsinger R
        • et al.
        Pain measurement tools and methods in clinical research in palliative care: recommendations of an expert working group of the European Association of Palliative Care.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002; 23: 239-255
        • Caraceni A
        • Mendoza TR
        • Mencaglia E
        • et al.
        A validation study of an Italian version of the Brief Pain Inventory (Breve Questionario per la Valutazione del Dolore).
        Pain. 1996; 65: 87-92
        • Ger LP
        • Ho ST
        • Sun WZ
        • Wang MS
        • Cleeland CS
        Validation of the Brief Pain Inventory in a Taiwanese population.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999; 18: 316-322
        • Larue F
        • Colleau SM
        • Brasseur L
        • Cleeland CS
        Multicentre study of cancer pain and its treatment in France.
        BMJ. 1995; 310: 1034-1037
        • Saxena A
        • Mendoza T
        • Cleeland CS
        The assessment of cancer pain in north India: the validation of the Hindi Brief Pain Inventory–BPI-H.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999; 17: 27-41
        • Uki J
        • Mendoza T
        • Cleeland CS
        • Nakamura Y
        • Takeda F
        A brief cancer pain assessment tool in Japanese: the utility of the Japanese Brief Pain Inventory–BPI-J.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 1998; 16: 364-373
        • Wang XS
        • Mendoza TR
        • Gao SZ
        • Cleeland CS
        The Chinese version of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-C): its development and use in a study of cancer pain.
        Pain. 1996; 67: 407-416
        • Radbruch L
        • Loick G
        • Kiencke P
        • et al.
        Validation of the German version of the Brief Pain Inventory.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999; 18: 180-187
        • Hyland ME
        • Sodergren SC
        Development of a new type of global quality of life scale, and comparison of performance and preference for 12 global scales.
        Qual Life Res. 1996; 5: 469-480
        • Chambers LW
        • Macdonald LA
        • Tugwell P
        • Buchanan WW
        • Kraag G
        The McMaster Health Index Questionnaire as a measure of quality of life for patients with rheumatoid disease.
        J Rheumatol. 1982; 9: 780-784
        • Frisch MB
        • Clark MP
        • Rouse SV
        • et al.
        Predictive and treatment validity of life satisfaction and the quality of life inventory.
        Assessment. 2005; 12: 66-78
        • Kaplan
        • Anderson JP
        • Wu AW
        • Mathews WC
        • Kozin F
        • Orenstein D
        The Quality of Well-Being Scale. Applications in AIDS, cystic fibrosis, and arthritis.
        Med Care. 1989; 27: S27-S43
        • Zung WW
        A self-rating depression scale.
        Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965; 12: 63-70
        • Beck AT
        • Ward CH
        • Mendelson M
        • Mock J
        • Erbaugh J
        An inventory for measuring depression.
        Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961; 4: 561-571
      4. Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:i-iv, 1-74.

      5. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria.
        Qual Life Res. 2002; 11: 193-205
        • Dworkin RH
        • Turk DC
        • Farrar JT
        • et al.
        Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.
        Pain. 2005; 113: 9-19
        • Greenhalgh J
        • Long AF
        • Brettle AJ
        • Grant MJ
        Reviewing and selecting outcome measures for use in routine practice.
        J Eval Clin Pract. 1998; 4: 339-350
        • Wiklund I
        Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health-related quality of life.
        Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2004; 18: 351-363
        • Haywood K.L.
        • M. Garratt A.
        • Jordan K.
        • Dziedzic K.
        • Dawes P.T.
        Disease-specific, patient-assessed measures of health outcome in ankylosing spondylitis: reliability, validity and responsiveness.
        Rheumatology. 2002; 41: 1295-1302
        • Deyo RA
        Using outcomes to improve quality of research and quality of care.
        J Am Board Fam Pract. 1998; 11: 465-473
        • Hajiro T
        • Nishimura K
        Minimal clinically significant difference in health status: the thorny path of health status measures?.
        Eur Respir J. 2002; 19: 390-391
        • Jaeschke R
        • Singer J
        • Guyatt GH
        Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.
        Control Clin Trials. 1989; 10: 407-415
        • Ruperto N
        Is minimal clinically important difference relevant for the interpretation of clinical trials in pediatric rheumatic diseases?.
        J Rheumatol. 2007; 34: 463-465
        • Beaton DE
        • Bombardier C
        • Katz JN
        • et al.
        Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome measures in rheumatology. Minimal clinically important difference.
        J Rheumatol. 2001; 28: 400-405
        • Dworkin SF
        • von Korff M
        • Witney CW
        • LeResche L
        • Dicker BG
        • Barlow W
        Measurement of characteristic pain intensity in field research.
        Pain Res Manag. 1990; : 290
        • Deyo RA
        • Battie M
        • Beurskens AJ
        • et al.
        Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use.
        Spine. 1998; 23: 2003-2013
        • Bombardier C
        Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 3100-3103
        • Ostelo RW
        • de Vet HC
        • Knol DL
        • van den Brandt PA
        24-Item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57: 268-276
        • Dionne CE
        • Von Korff M
        • Koepsell TD
        • Deyo RA
        • Barlow WE
        • Checkoway H
        A comparison of pain, functional limitations, and work status indices as outcome measures in back pain research.
        Spine. 1999; 24: 2339-2345
        • Jacob T
        • Baras M
        • Zeev A
        • Epstein L
        Low back pain: reliability of a set of pain measurement tools.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82: 735-742
        • Cook C
        • Richardson JK
        • Braga L
        • et al.
        Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Neck Disability Index and Neck Pain and Disability Scale.
        Spine. 2006; 31: 1621-1627
        • Vos CJ
        • Verhagen AP
        • Koes BW
        Reliability and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the Neck Disability Index in patients with acute neck pain in general practice.
        Eur Spine J. 2006; 15: 1729-1736
        • Wlodyka-Demaille S
        • Poiraudeau S
        • Catanzariti JF
        • Rannou F
        • Fermanian J
        • Revel M
        French translation and validation of 3 functional disability scales for neck pain.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83: 376-382
        • Lee H
        • Nicholson LL
        • Adams RD
        • Maher CG
        • Halaki M
        • Bae SS
        Development and psychometric testing of Korean language versions of 4 neck pain and disability questionnaires.
        Spine. 2006; 31: 1841-1845
        • Ackelman BH
        • Lindgren U
        Validity and reliability of a modified version of the neck disability index.
        J Rehabil Med. 2002; 34: 284-287
        • Maaroufi H
        • Benbouazza K
        • Faik A
        • et al.
        Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Moroccan version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire.
        Spine. 2007; 32: 1461-1465
        • Bejia I
        • Younes M
        • Kamel BS
        • et al.
        Validation of the Tunisian version of the Roland-Morris Questionnaire.
        Eur Spine J. 2005; 14: 171-174
        • Hsieh LL
        • Kuo CH
        • Lee LH
        • Yen AM
        • Chien KL
        • Chen TH
        Treatment of low back pain by acupressure and physical therapy: randomised controlled trial.
        BMJ. 2006; 332: 696-700
        • Albert HB
        • Jensen AM
        • Dahl D
        • Rasmussen MN
        Criteria validation of the Roland Morris questionnaire. A Danish translation of the international scale for the assessment of functional level in patients with low back pain and sciatica.
        Ugeskr Laeger. 2003; 165: 1875-1880
        • Brouwer S
        • Kuijer W
        • Dijkstra PU
        • Goeken LN
        • Groothoff JW
        • Geertzen JH
        Reliability and stability of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire: intra class correlation and limits of agreement.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2004; 26: 162-165
        • Stratford PW
        • Binkley JM
        A comparison study of the back pain functional scale and Roland Morris Questionnaire. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network.
        J Rheumatol. 2000; 27: 1928-1936
        • Pengel LH
        • Refshauge KM
        • Maher CG
        • Nicholas MK
        • Herbert RD
        • McNair P
        Physiotherapist-directed exercise, advice, or both for subacute low back pain: a randomized trial.
        Ann Intern Med. 2007; 146: 787-796
        • Pengel LH
        • Refshauge KM
        • Maher CG
        Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain.
        Spine. 2004; 29: 879-883
        • Demoulin C
        • Fauconnier C
        • Vanderthommen M
        • Henrotin Y
        Recommendations for a basic functional assessment of low back pain.
        Rev Med Liege. 2005; 60: 661-668
        • Wiesinger GF
        • Nuhr M
        • Quittan M
        • Ebenbichler G
        • Wolfl G
        • Fialka-Moser V
        Cross-cultural adaptation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire for German-speaking patients with low back pain.
        Spine. 1999; 24: 1099-1103
        • Boscainos PJ
        • Sapkas G
        • Stilianessi E
        • Prouskas K
        • Papadakis SA
        Greek versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaires.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; : 40-53
        • Mousavi SJ
        • Parnianpour M
        • Mehdian H
        • Montazeri A
        • Mobini B
        The Oswestry Disability Index, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions.
        Spine. 2006; 31: E454-E459
        • Salaffi F
        • Stancati A
        • Carotti M
        • Lorenzetti R
        • Grassi W
        The impact of vertebral fractures on quality of life in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Validity of the Italian version of mini-Osteoporosis Quality of Life Questionnaire.
        Reumatismo. 2005; 57: 83-96
        • Nakamura M
        • Miyamoto K
        • Shimizu K
        Validation of the Japanese version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for Japanese patients with lumbar spinal diseases.
        Spine. 2003; 28: 2414-2418
        • Suzukamo Y
        • Fukuhara S
        • Kikuchi S
        • et al.
        Validation of the Japanese version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.
        J Orthop Sci. 2003; 8: 543-548
        • Grotle M
        • Brox JI
        • Vollestad NK
        Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index.
        J Rehabil Med. 2003; 35: 241-247
        • Opara J
        • Szary S
        • Kucharz E
        Polish cultural adaptation of the Roland-Morris Questionnaire for evaluation of quality of life in patients with low back pain.
        Spine. 2006; 31: 2744-2746
        • Nusbaum L
        • Natour J
        • Ferraz MB
        • Goldenberg J
        Translation, adaptation and validation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire–Brazil Roland-Morris.
        Braz J Med Biol Res. 2001; 34: 203-210
        • Vigatto R
        • Alexandre NM
        • Correa Filho HR
        Development of a Brazilian Portuguese version of the Oswestry Disability Index: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity.
        Spine. 2007; 32: 481-486
        • Kovacs FM
        • Llobera J
        • Gil Del Real MT
        • et al.
        Validation of the Spanish version of the Roland-Morris questionnaire.
        Spine. 2002; 27: 538-542
        • Johansson E
        • Lindberg P
        Subacute and chronic low back pain. Reliability and validity of a Swedish version of the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire.
        Scand J Rehabil Med. 1998; 30: 139-143
        • Jirarattanaphochai K
        • Jung S
        • Sumananont C
        • Saengnipanthkul S
        Reliability of the Roland - Morris Disability Questionnaire (Thai version) for the evaluation of low back pain patients.
        J Med Assoc Thai. 2005; 88: 407-411
        • Kucukdeveci AA
        • Tennant A
        • Elhan AH
        • Niyazoglu H
        Validation of the Turkish version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain.
        Spine. 2001; 26: 2738-2743
        • Mystakidou K
        • Mendoza T
        • Tsilika E
        • et al.
        Greek brief pain inventory: validation and utility in cancer pain.
        Oncology. 2001; 60: 35-42
        • Bonezzi C
        • Nava A
        • Barbieri M
        • et al.
        Validazione della versione italiana del Brief Pain Inventory nei pazienti con dolore cronico.
        Minerva Anestesiol. 2002; 68: 607-611
        • Yun YH
        • Mendoza TR
        • Heo DS
        • et al.
        Development of a cancer pain assessment tool in Korea: a validation study of a Korean version of the brief pain inventory.
        Oncology. 2004; 66: 439-444
        • Yun YH
        • Park YS
        • Lee ES
        • et al.
        Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30.
        Qual Life Res. 2004; 13: 863-868
        • Yun YH
        • Wang XS
        • Lee JS
        • et al.
        Validation study of the Korean version of the brief fatigue inventory.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005; 29: 165-172
        • Klepstad P
        • Loge JH
        • Borchgrevink PC
        • Mendoza TR
        • Cleeland CS
        • Kaasa S
        The Norwegian brief pain inventory questionnaire: translation and validation in cancer pain patients.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002; 24: 517-525
        • Aisyaturridha A
        • Naing L
        • Nizar AJ
        Validation of the Malay Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire to measure cancer pain.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 2006; 31: 13-21
        • Badia X
        • Muriel C
        • Gracia A
        • et al.
        Validation of the Spanish version of the Brief Pain Inventory in patients with oncological pain.
        Med Clin (Barc). 2003; 120: 52-59
        • Cleeland CS
        • Ladinsky JL
        • Serlin RC
        • Nugyen CT
        Multidimensional measurement of cancer pain: comparisons of US and Vietnamese patients.
        J Pain Symptom Manage. 1988; 3: 23-27
        • Aboud FE
        • Hiwot MG
        • Arega A
        • et al.
        The McGill Pain Questionnaire in Amharic: Zwai Health Center patients' reports on the experience of pain.
        Ethiop Med J. 2003; 41: 45-61
        • Drewes AM
        • Helweg-Larsen S
        • Petersen P
        • et al.
        McGill Pain Questionnaire translated into Danish: experimental and clinical findings.
        Clin J Pain. 1993; 9: 80-87
        • Stein C
        • Mendl G
        The German counterpart to McGill Pain Questionnaire.
        Pain. 1988; 32: 251-255
        • Georgoudis G
        • Watson PJ
        • Oldham JA
        The development and validation of a Greek version of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire.
        Eur J Pain. 2000; 4: 275-281
        • Maiani G
        • Sanavio E
        Semantics of pain in Italy: the Italian version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire.
        Pain. 1985; 22: 399-405
        • Hasegawa M
        • Hattori S
        • Mishima M
        • et al.
        The McGill Pain Questionnaire, Japanese version, reconsidered: confirming the theoretical structure.
        Pain Res Manag. 2001; 6: 173-180
        • Hasegawa M
        • Mishima M
        • Matsumoto I
        • et al.
        Confirming the theoretical structure of the Japanese version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire in chronic pain.
        Pain Med. 2001; 2: 52-59
        • Strand LI
        • Ljunggren AE
        Different approximations of the McGill Pain Questionnaire in the Norwegian language: a discussion of content validity.
        J Adv Nurs. 1997; 26: 772-779
        • Lazaro C
        • Caseras X
        • Whizar-Lugo VM
        • et al.
        Psychometric properties of a Spanish version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire in several Spanish-speaking countries.
        Clin J Pain. 2001; 17: 365-374
        • Masedo AI
        • Esteve R
        Some empirical evidence regarding the validity of the Spanish version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ-SV).
        Pain. 2000; 85: 451-456
        • Kitisomprayoonkul W
        • Klaphajone J
        • Kovindha A
        Thai Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire.
        J Med Assoc Thai. 2006; 89: 846-853
        • Guermazi M
        • Mezghani M
        • Ghroubi S
        • et al.
        The Oswestry index for low back pain translated into Arabic and validated in a Arab population.
        Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2005; 48: 1-10
        • Chow JH
        • Chan CC
        Validation of the Chinese version of the Oswestry Disability Index.
        Work. 2005; 25: 307-314
        • Lauridsen HH
        • Hartvigsen J
        • Manniche C
        • Korsholm L
        • Grunnet-Nilsson N
        Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations.
        Eur Spine J. 2006; 15: 1705-1716
        • Lauridsen HH
        • Hartvigsen J
        • Manniche C
        • Korsholm L
        • Grunnet-Nilsson N
        Danish version of the Oswestry disability index for patients with low back pain. Part 2: sensitivity, specificity and clinically significant improvement in two low back pain populations.
        Eur Spine J. 2006; 15: 1717-1728
        • Mannion AF
        • Junge A
        • Fairbank JC
        • Dvorak J
        • Grob D
        Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 1: cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity.
        Eur Spine J. 2006; 15: 55-65
        • Osthus H
        • Cziske R
        • Jacobi E
        Cross-cultural adaptation of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index and evaluation of its measurement properties.
        Spine. 2006; 31: E448-E453
        • Hashimoto H
        • Komagata M
        • Nakai O
        • et al.
        Discriminative validity and responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index among Japanese outpatients with lumbar conditions.
        Eur Spine J. 2006; 15: 1645-1650
        • Jeon CH
        • Kim DJ
        • Kim SK
        • Kim DJ
        • Lee HM
        • Park HJ
        Validation in the cross-cultural adaptation of the Korean version of the Oswestry Disability Index.
        J Korean Med Sci. 2006; 21: 1092-1097
        • Kim DY
        • Lee SH
        • Lee HY
        • et al.
        Validation of the Korean version of the Oswestry Disability Index.
        Spine. 2005; 30: E123-E127
        • Yakut E
        • Duger T
        • Oksuz C
        • et al.
        Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain.
        Spine. 2004; 29 ([discussion 585]): 581-585
        • Casser H
        • Riedel T
        • Schrembs C
        • Ingenhorst A
        • Kuhnau D
        The multimodal interdisciplinary therapeutic program in chronic back pain. A new treatment strategy.
        Orthopade. 1999; 28: 946-957
        • Grossmann P
        • Wellpott P
        • Grossmann S
        • Ostermann HW
        Future occupational plans of patients after orthopedic rehabilitation: how are they expressed? What influences them?.
        Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 1998; 37: 68-77
        • Hauser W
        Self-assessed pain intensity and disability in subjects diagnosed with fibromyalgia claiming retirement pension.
        Schmerz. 2007;
        • Streibelt M
        • Hansmeier T
        • Muller-Fahrnow W
        Effects of work-related medical rehabilitation in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.
        Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2006; 45: 161-171
        • Tunnerhoff HG
        • Das Gupta K
        • Haussmann P
        Functional results of medio-carpal partial arthrodesis with excision of the scaphoid.
        Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2001; 33: 408-417
        • Sabbah I
        • Drouby N
        • Sabbah S
        • Retel-Rude N
        • Mercier M
        Quality of life in rural and urban populations in Lebanon using SF-36 Health Survey.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1: 30
        • Gonzalez N
        • Quintana JM
        • Arostegui I
        • et al.
        Translation and psychometric testing of the Basque version of the SF-36 health survey.
        Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 549-554
        • Ahmed SM
        • Rana AK
        • Chowdhury M
        • Bhuiya A
        Measuring perceived health outcomes in non-western culture: does SF-36 have a place?.
        J Health Popul Nutr. 2002; 20: 334-342
        • Cheung YB
        • Machin D
        • Fong KY
        • Thio ST
        • Thumboo J
        Discriminative ability of the short-form 36 health survey: a tale of two versions.
        Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 555-559
        • Lam CL
        • Gandek B
        • Ren XS
        • Chan MS
        Tests of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the Chinese (HK) version of the SF-36 Health Survey.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1139-1147
        • Fuh JL
        • Wang SJ
        • Lu SR
        • Juang KD
        • Lee SJ
        Psychometric evaluation of a Chinese (Taiwanese) version of the SF-36 health survey amongst middle-aged women from a rural community.
        Qual Life Res. 2000; 9: 675-683
        • Li L
        • Wang H
        • Shen Y
        Development and psychometric tests of a Chinese version of the SF-36 Health Survey Scales.
        Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2002; 36: 109-113
        • Li L
        • Wang HM
        • Shen Y
        Chinese SF-36 Health Survey: translation, cultural adaptation, validation, and normalisation.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57: 259-263
        • Maslic Sersic D
        • Vuletic G
        Psychometric evaluation and establishing norms of Croatian SF-36 health survey: framework for subjective health research.
        Croat Med J. 2006; 47: 95-102
        • Skalska H
        • Sobotik Z
        • Jezberova D
        • Mares J
        Use and evaluation of the Czech version of the SF-36 questionnaire self-reported health status of medical students.
        Cent Eur J Public Health. 2000; 8: 88-93
        • Aaronson NK
        • Muller M
        • Cohen PD
        • et al.
        Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1055-1068
        • van der Heijden PG
        • van Buuren S
        • Fekkes M
        • Radder J
        • Verrips E
        Unidimensionality and reliability under Mokken scaling of the Dutch language version of the SF-36.
        Qual Life Res. 2003; 12: 189-198
        • Bjorner JB
        • Thunedborg K
        • Kristensen TS
        • Modvig J
        • Bech P
        The Danish SF-36 Health Survey: translation and preliminary validity studies.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 991-999
        • Gundgaard J
        • Lauridsen J
        Decomposition of sources of income-related health inequality applied on SF-36 summary scores: a Danish health survey.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006; 4: 53
        • Jenkinson C
        • Stewart-Brown S
        • Petersen S
        • Paice C
        Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53: 46-50
        • Lloyd A
        Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53: 651-652
        • Dauphinee SW
        • Gauthier L
        • Gandek B
        • Magnan L
        • Pierre U
        Readying a US measure of health status, the SF-36, for use in Canada.
        Clin Invest Med. 1997; 20: 224-238
        • Sanson-Fisher RW
        • Perkins JJ
        Adaptation and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Australia.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 961-967
        • Wilson D
        • Tucker G
        • Chittleborough C
        Rethinking and rescoring the SF-12.
        Soz Praventivmed. 2002; 47: 172-177
        • Leplege A
        • Mesbah M
        • Marquis P
        Preliminary analysis of the psychometric properties of the French version of an international questionnaire measuring the quality of life: the MOS SF-36 (version 1.1).
        Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 1995; 43: 371-379
        • Perneger TV
        • Leplege A
        • Etter JF
        • Rougemont A
        Validation of a French-language version of the MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in young healthy adults.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1995; 48: 1051-1060
        • Leplege A
        • Ecosse E
        • Verdier A
        • Perneger TV
        The French SF-36 Health Survey: translation, cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric evaluation.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1013-1023
        • Pappa E
        • Kontodimopoulos N
        • Niakas D
        Validating and norming of the Greek SF-36 Health Survey.
        Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 1433-1438
        • Anagnostopoulos F
        • Niakas D
        • Pappa E
        Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 Health Survey.
        Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 1959-1965
        • Muller H
        • Franke A
        • Schuck P
        • Resch KL
        A hospital suited version of the German SF-36 and its psychometric comparison with the original questionnaire.
        Soz Praventivmed. 2001; 46: 96-105
        • Frosch D
        • Porzsolt F
        • Heicappell R
        • et al.
        Comparison of German language versions of the QWB-SA and SF-36 evaluating outcomes for patients with prostate disease.
        Qual Life Res. 2001; 10: 165-173
        • Lewin-Epstein N
        • Sagiv-Schifter T
        • Shabtai EL
        • Shmueli A
        Validation of the 36-item short-form Health Survey (Hebrew version) in the adult population of Israel.
        Med Care. 1998; 36: 1361-1370
        • Montazeri A
        • Goshtasebi A
        • Vahdaninia M
        • Gandek B
        The Short Form Health Survey (SF-36): translation and validation study of the Iranian version.
        Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 875-882
        • Motamed N
        • Ayatollahi AR
        • Zare N
        • Sadeghi-Hassanabadi A
        Validity and reliability of the Persian translation of the SF-36 version 2 questionnaire.
        East Mediterr Health J. 2005; 11: 349-357
        • Apolone G
        • Mosconi P
        The Italian SF-36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1025-1036
        • Kodraliu G
        • Mosconi P
        • Groth N
        • et al.
        Subjective health status assessment: evaluation of the Italian version of the SF-12 Health Survey. Results from the MiOS Project.
        J Epidemiol Biostat. 2001; 6: 305-316
        • Fukuhara S
        • Bito S
        • Green J
        • Hsiao A
        • Kurokawa K
        Translation, adaptation, and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Japan.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1037-1044
        • Fukuroku K
        • Ogino S
        Quality of life in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: using the Japanese version of the SF-36 Health Status Questionnaire.
        Arerugi. 2001; 50: 385-393
        • Fukuroku K
        • Nagano T
        • Ogino S
        Quality of life in patients with atopic dermatitis: using the Japanese version of the SF-36 health status questionnaire.
        Arerugi. 2002; 51: 1159-1169
        • Wagner AK
        • Wyss K
        • Gandek B
        • Kilima PM
        • Lorenz S
        • Whiting D
        A Kiswahili version of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Tanzania: translation and tests of scaling assumptions.
        Qual Life Res. 1999; 8: 101-110
        • Wyss K
        • Wagner AK
        • Whiting D
        • et al.
        Validation of the Kiswahili version of the SF-36 Health Survey in a representative sample of an urban population in Tanzania.
        Qual Life Res. 1999; 8: 111-120
        • Han CW
        • Lee EJ
        • Iwaya T
        • Kataoka H
        • Kohzuki M
        Development of the Korean version of Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey: health related QOL of healthy elderly people and elderly patients in Korea.
        Tohoku J Exp Med. 2004; 203: 189-194
        • Sararaks S
        • Azman AB
        • Low LL
        • et al.
        Validity and reliability of the SF-36: the Malaysian context.
        Med J Malaysia. 2005; 60: 163-179
        • Tseng HM
        • Lu JF
        • Gandek B
        Cultural issues in using the SF-36 health survey in Asia: results from Taiwan.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1: 72
        • Loge JH
        • Kaasa S
        • Hjermstad MJ
        • Kvien TK
        Translation and performance of the Norwegian SF-36 Health Survey in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. I. Data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability, and construct validity.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1069-1076
        • Marcinowicz L
        • Sienkiewicz J
        Assessment of the validity and reliability of the Polish version of the SF-36 questionnaire—preliminary findings.
        Przegl Lek. 2003; 60: 103-106
        • Ferreira PL
        Development of the Portuguese version of MOS SF-36. Part II—validation tests.
        Acta Med Port. 2000; 13: 119-127
        • Ferreira PL
        Development of the Portuguese version of MOS SF-36. Part I. Cultural and linguistic adaptation.
        Acta Med Port. 2000; 13: 55-66
        • Severo M
        • Santos AC
        • Lopes C
        • Barros H
        Reliability and validity in measuring physical and mental health construct of the Portuguese version of MOS SF-36.
        Acta Med Port. 2006; 19: 281-287
        • Alonso J
        • Prieto L
        • Anto JM
        The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results.
        Med Clin (Barc). 1995; 104: 771-776
        • Ayuso-Mateos JL
        • Lasa L
        • Vazquez-Barquero JL
        Internal and external validity of the Spanish version of SF-36.
        Med Clin (Barc). 1999; 113: 37
        • Ayuso-Mateos JL
        • Lasa L
        • Vazquez-Barquero JL
        • Oviedo A
        • Diez-Manrique JF
        Measuring health status in psychiatric community surveys: internal and external validity of the Spanish version of the SF-36.
        Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1999; 99: 26-32
        • Lopez-Garcia E
        • Banegas JR
        • Graciani Perez-Regadera A
        • Gutierrez-Fisac JL
        • Alonso J
        • Rodriguez-Artalejo F
        Population-based reference values for the Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey in the elderly.
        Med Clin (Barc). 2003; 120: 568-573
        • Martinez Martin P
        • Frades B
        • Jimenez FJ
        • et al.
        The PDQ-39 Spanish version: reliability and correlation with the short-form health survey (SF-36).
        Neurologia. 1999; 14: 159-163
        • Arocho R
        • McMillan CA
        Discriminant and criterion validation of the US-Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey in a Cuban-American population with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
        Med Care. 1998; 36: 766-772
        • Arocho R
        • McMillan CA
        • Sutton-Wallace P
        Construct validation of the USA-Spanish version of the SF-36 health survey in a Cuban-American population with benign prostatic hyperplasia.
        Qual Life Res. 1998; 7: 121-126
        • Duran-Arenas L
        • Gallegos-Carrillo K
        • Salinas-Escudero G
        • Martinez-Salgado H
        Towards a Mexican normative standard for measurement of the short format 36 health-related quality of life instrument.
        Salud Publica Mex. 2004; 46: 306-315
        • Taft C
        • Karlsson J
        • Sullivan M
        Performance of the Swedish SF-36 version 2.0.
        Qual Life Res. 2004; 13: 251-256
        • Charoencholvanich K
        • Pongcharoen B
        Oxford knee score and SF-36: translation & reliability for use with total knee arthroscopy patients in Thailand.
        J Med Assoc Thai. 2005; 88: 1194-1202
        • Krittayaphong R
        • Bhuripanyo K
        • Raungratanaamporn O
        • et al.
        Reliability of Thai version of SF-36 questionnaire for the evaluation of quality of life in cardiac patients.
        J Med Assoc Thai. 2000; 83: S130-136
        • Pinar R
        Reliability and construct validity of the SF-36 in Turkish cancer patients.
        Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 259-264
        • Watkins RE
        • Plant AJ
        • Sang D
        • O'Rourke T
        • Gushulak B
        Development of a Vietnamese version of the Short form-36 Health Survey.
        Asia Pac J Public Health. 2000; 12: 118-123
        • Hoopman R
        • Terwee CB
        • Muller MJ
        • Aaronson NK
        Translation and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use among Turkish and Moroccan ethnic minority cancer patients in The Netherlands.
        Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42: 2982-2990
        • Bullinger M
        • Alonso J
        • Apolone G
        • et al.
        Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 913-923
        • Gandek B
        • Ware JE
        Methods for validating and norming translations of health status questionnaires: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 953-959
        • Keller SD
        • Ware JE
        • Gandek B
        • et al.
        Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 933-944
        • Wagner AK
        • Gandek B
        • Aaronson NK
        • et al.
        Cross-cultural comparisons of the content of SF-36 translations across 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 925-932
        • Ware JE
        • Gandek B
        • Kosinski M
        • et al.
        The equivalence of SF-36 summary health scores estimated using standard and country-specific algorithms in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1167-1170