Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Dutch Version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the Neck in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Degenerative Disease of the Cervical Spine

Pravesh S Gadjradj, Timothy C Chin-See-Chong, Daphne Donk, Paul Depauw, Maurits W van Tulder, Biswadjiet S Harhangi, Pravesh S Gadjradj, Timothy C Chin-See-Chong, Daphne Donk, Paul Depauw, Maurits W van Tulder, Biswadjiet S Harhangi

Abstract

Objective: To perform the psychometric validation of the Dutch version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck.

Methods: A total of 178 patients, who had an indication for surgery due to degenerative cervical spinal disease, were enrolled in the study. They filled in a baseline booklet containing the Dutch version of the COMI-neck, Likert-scales for neck and arm/shoulder pain, the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and the 12-item Short Form health survey (SF-12). Aside from analyzing construct validity using the Spearman correlation test, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness at 3 months were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, respectively.

Results: The COMI-neck showed good acceptability with missing data ranging from 0% to 4.5% and some floor/ceiling effects for 3 of the domains at baseline. The COMI-summary score showed good to very good correlation with the EQ5D (ρ = -0.43), the physical component summary of the SF-12 (ρ = -0.47) and the NDI (ρ = 0.73). Individual domains showed correlations of -0.28 to 0.85 with the reference questionnaires. Test-retest reliability analysis showed an ICC of 0.91 with a minimal detectable change of 1.7. Responsiveness analysis of the COMI-neck showed an area under 0.79 under the ROC-curve. The standardized response mean for a good outcome was 1.24 and for a poor outcome 0.37.

Conclusion: The current study shows that the Dutch version of the COMI-neck is a valid, reliable and responsive Patient-Reported Outcome Measure, among patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical spinal disorders.

Keywords: Core outcomes measures index; Dutch; Validation.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Flowchart of study procedures.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

References

    1. de Rooij JD, Gadjradj PS, Huygen FJ, et al. Management of symptomatic cervical disk herniation: a survey among dutch neurosurgeons. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:311–7.
    1. Weldring T, Smith SM. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Health Serv Insights. 2013;6:61–8.
    1. Nayak NR, Coats JM, Abdullah KG, et al. Tracking patient-reported outcomes in spinal disorders. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6(Suppl 19):S490–9.
    1. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS, et al. The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J. 2009;18 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):367–73.
    1. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS, et al. The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J. 2009;18 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):374–9.
    1. Oshima Y, Nagata K, Nakamoto H, et al. Validity of the Japanese core outcome measures index (COMI)-neck for cervical spine surgery: a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J. 2021;30:402–9.
    1. Nagata K, Oshima Y, Nakamoto H, et al. Validity of the Japanese Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)-Back for thoracic and lumbar spine surgery: a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J. 2020;29:1435–44.
    1. Fankhauser CD, Mutter U, Aghayev E, et al. Validity and responsiveness of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the neck. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:101–14.
    1. Monticone M, Ferrante S, Maggioni S, et al. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the core outcome measures index (COMI) for the neck. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:863–72.
    1. Gadjradj PS, Chalaki M, van Tulder MW, Harhangi BS. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Dutch version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI -back) in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Brain Spine. 2021;1:100004.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.
    1. Vernon H, Mior S. The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991;14:409–15.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.
    1. Ware J, Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.
    1. Steiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 1995.
    1. Karabicak GO, Hazar Kanik Z, Gunaydin G, et al. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the neck pain. Eur Spine J. 2020;29:186–93.
    1. Miekisiak G, Banach M, Kiwic G, et al. Reliability and validity of the Polish version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the neck. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:898–903.
    1. Klemencsics I, Lazary A, Valasek T, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Hungarian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI Back) Eur Spine J. 2016;25:257–64.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera