Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27885478›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 Society2017

The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: one or more dimensions?

Tiê Parma Yamato, Chris G Maher, Bruno T Saragiotto, Mark J Catley, James H McAuley

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, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Cupping therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Article
  4. Pain Scales: What Are They and What Do They Mean.Current pain and headache reports · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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.

Tiê Parma YamatoMusculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. tyamato@georgeinstitute.org.au.
Chris G MaherMusculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Bruno T SaragiottoMusculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Mark J CatleySansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
James H McAuleyNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is one of the most recommended questionnaires to assess disability. Some previous studies support the assumption that the RMDQ is a unidimensional measure; however, recent studies have suggested that this measure has more than one domain and should be considered as a multidimensional scale. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the structure of the RMDQ in a large sample of patients with low back pain using two different statistical approaches.

methodsWe analysed existing datasets from previous clinical studies. We assessed unidimensionality using Rasch analysis of item fit statistics and through principle component analysis of residuals. We also performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the hypothesis of a 3-factor solution.

resultsWe included data from 2826 patients with non-specific low back pain. The average age of all participants included was 46.4 years, and half of the participants were women (50.1%). The Rasch analysis model showed that the RMDQ is unidimensional, with only two items demonstrating slight excessive positive outfit. Results from the CFA suggested poor fit to the data of a 3-factor solution.

conclusionsWe recommend that the RMDQ should still be used as a unidimensional scale for measuring disability as the only construct.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedPrincipal Component AnalysisSurveys and QuestionnairesFactor analysisLow back painPsychometricsSpine

Identifiers

PMID27885478

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.