ArticleThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2019
Oswestry Disability Index: Is Telephone Administration Valid?
Article in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vertebral body expansion and percutaneous short-segment posterior fixation of thoracic and lumbar fractures requiring corpectomy: a retrospective single-center study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Correlation between lumbar disc herniation nerve root compression and clinical symptoms: a study using lumbosacral plexus magnetic resonance neurography combined with T2 mapping.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Hemiarthroplasty or total elbow arthroplasty for unreconstructible distal humeral fractures in the elderly (hot elbow): A feasibility study.Shoulder & elbow · 2025Article
- Article
- Increased Risk of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures Following Epidural Steroid Injections in Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of transforaminal approach spinal endoscopy in the treatment of patients with lumbar disc herniation and the factors affecting its efficacy.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Anatomical changes in lumbosacral vertebrae and their correlation with facet joint-derived low back pain in patients with hip osteoarthritis after total hip arthroplasty: a cohort study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Effect evaluation of acupuncture combined with nerve block treatment on patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis.International journal of burns and trauma · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is among the most widely used patient reported outcome measures for the assessment of spinal conditions. Traditionally, the ODI has been administered in outpatient clinics on a face-to-face basis, which can be expensive and time consuming. Furthermore, the percentage of patients lost to clinical follow-up is high, particularly after 2-5 years. Thus, telephonic administration of the ODI, if valid, could be a convenient way of capturing patient outcomes and increasing follow-up rates. The objective of this study was to validate telephonic administration of the ODI compared to face-to-face administration. Methods: A convenience sample of individuals with and without back pain in an academic medical center were recruited for this study. Face-to-face administration of the ODI was completed and retested 24 hours later via phone. Test-retest reliability was determined by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: 22 individuals completed the ODI questionnaire face-to-face, then via telephone 24 hours later. There was a mean 2% (± 3) intra-rater ODI score difference (range: 0% to 12%). The intraclass correlation coefficient overall was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.99, p<0.001) with a range of 0.95 to 1.0, revealing near-perfect test-retest reliability. Conclusions: Administration of the ODI questionnaire over the phone has excellent test-retest reliability when compared to face-to-face administration. Telephone administration is a convenient and reliable option for obtaining follow-up outcomes data. Clinical Relevance: Telephonic administration of the ODI is scientifically valid, and should be an accepted method of data collection for state-level and national-level outcomes projects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32577114PMC7047302W3037627306What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.