ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Assessment of the content validity of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD): a qualitative study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDegenerative disc disease (DDD) is a common disorder that can lead to chronic lower back pain (CLBP). The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) is a well-established instrument for diseases of the lumbar spine and lower back pain (LBP), covering pain intensity and pain-related disability. This study evaluated the content validity of the modified electronic ODI among patients with DDD and CLBP in the United States (US).
methodCognitive interviews were conducted with 12 participants from the US diagnosed with DDD and CLBP using a semi-structured interview guide to assess the comprehension and relevance of the ODI. Concept saturation was achieved by the 12th interview.
resultsTwelve participants (mean age 40 years old, standard deviation 11 years) including 11 females provided interpretations of the instructions and for each section that were aligned with the intended meanings (11–12/12, ≥ 92%). Sections were relevant to participants’ experience (11–12/12, ≥ 92%), with the sex life section being less relevant (9/12, 75%). Response options were easy to understand. Participants’ interpretations aligned with response options’ intended meanings in 7/10 sections, with less alignment in the lifting, social life, sex life sections due to perceived similarities in ≥ 2 response options. Participants used different recall periods across sections, which was often related to the absence of experiencing the activity at the time of the interview. Most (7/9, 78%) preferred the use of a one-week recall period.
conclusionsThis study confirms the content validity of the ODI in patients with DDD. The ODI with a seven-day recall period would be more appropriate for use in this population to evaluate patient outcomes in a clinical trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.