Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27040281›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2016

Confirmatory factor analysis of the neck disability index, comparing patients with whiplash associated disorders to a control group with non-specific neck pain.

Charles Philip Gabel, Antonio Cuesta-Vargas, Sebastian Barr, Stephanie Winkeljohn Black, Jason W Osborne, Markus Melloh

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Reliability and validity of self-reported questionnaires to measure pain and disability in adults with neck pain and its associated disorders: part 3-a systematic review from the CADRE Collaboration.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 · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Charles Philip GabelPrivate Researcher, Coolum Physiotherapy, Coolum Beach, QLD, Australia. cp.gabel@bigpond.com.
Antonio Cuesta-VargasDepartment of Psychiatry and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, Malaga University, Malaga, Spain.
Sebastian BarrDepartment of Counselling and Human Development, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Stephanie Winkeljohn BlackDepartment of Counselling and Human Development, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Jason W OsborneDepartment of Mathematical Sciences and the Graduate School, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.
Markus MellohCentre for Health Sciences, School of Health Professions, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
University of Louisville · USChris O’Brien Lifehouse · AUClemson University · USUniversidad de Málaga · ESUniversity of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledPurpose The neck disability index (NDI) as a 10-item patient reported outcome (PRO) measure is the most commonly used whiplash associated disorders (WAD) assessment tool. However, statistical rigor and factor structure are not definitive. To date, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has not examined whether the factor structure generalizes across different groups (e.g., WAD versus non-WAD). This study aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the NDI in these population groups.

methodsThis study used CFA to analyze NDI baseline-data for WAD (n = 804; 69 % females) and non-WAD (n = 963; 67 % females), each for the full sample and separate genders. Invariance analyses examined the NDI structure across the four groups.

resultsAcross both populations and gender subgroups the one-factor solutions consistently showed better model fit over two-factor solutions. The NDI was best characterized as one-dimensional and invariant across multiple sub-groups.

conclusionThe NDI remains a valid PRO in WAD populations that provides acceptable measurement of neck status that is appropriate for basic functional assessment across genders. However, it is recommended that both clinicians and researchers initiate the transition toward more rigorous and less ambiguous PRO measurement tools for WAD patients and research. This future graduated movement toward other PROs should consider both regional PROs and computerized decision support systems, initially measured concurrently with the NDI to establish ways to convert existing scored data prior to their singular use.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultControl GroupsCross-Sectional StudiesDisability EvaluationFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeck PainPain MeasurementPsychometricsWhiplash InjuriesClinimetricsFactor AnalysisNeck disability indexNeck PainWhiplash

Identifiers

PMID27040281
OpenAlexW2339615681

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.