Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25955090›Full record

SynthesisSpine2015

Can we convert between outcome measures of disability for chronic low back pain?

Tom Morris, Siew Wan Hee, Nigel Stallard, Martin Underwood, Shilpa Patel

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Spine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A crosswalk for the conversion of scores between the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the neck version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI-neck).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) comes of age: 18 years of efficient and effective patient-reported outcome measurement in the field of spinal disorders. Part 1. Development of the COMI, interpretation of scores, and use in research.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Outcome measurement in patients with low back pain undergoing epidural steroid injection.Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tom Morris*Leicester Clinical Trials Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and †Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Siew Wan Hee
Nigel Stallard
Martin Underwood
Shilpa Patel

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0608-10076
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designRetrospective database analysis.

objectiveA range of patient-reported outcomes were used to measure disability due to low back pain. There is not a single back pain disability measurement commonly used in all randomized controlled trials. We report here our assessment as to whether different disability measures are sufficiently comparable to allow data pooling across trials. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: We used individual patient data from a repository of data from back pain trials of therapist-delivered interventions.

methodsWe used data from 11 trials (n=6089 patients) that had at least 2 of the following 7 measurements: Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Chronic Pain Grade disability score, Physical Component Summary of the 12- or 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Patient Specific Functional Scale, Pain Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, and Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire. Within each trial, the change score between baseline and short-term follow-up was computed for each outcome and this was used to calculate the correlation between the change scores and the Cohen's κ for the 3-level outcome of change score of less than, equal to, and more than zero. It was considered feasible to pool 2 measures if they were at least moderately correlated (correlation>0.5) and have at least moderately similar responsiveness (κ>0.4).

resultsAlthough all pairs of measures were found to be positively correlated, most correlations were less than 0.5, with only 1 pair of outcomes in 1 trial having a correlation of more than 0.6. All κ statistics were less than 0.4 so that in no cases were the criteria for acceptability of pooling measures satisfied.

conclusionThe lack of agreement between different outcome measures means that pooling of data on these different disability measurements in a meta-analysis is not recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationPain MeasurementChronic PainCost of IllnessDatabases, FactualHumansLow Back PainPredictive Value of TestsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25955090
PMCPMC4504533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.