首页> 外文期刊>European spine journal >Validation of the Simplified Chinese version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)
【24h】

Validation of the Simplified Chinese version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)

机译:验证核心成果衡量指标(COMI)的简体中文版本

获取原文
           

摘要

PurposeTo translate the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) into Simplified Chinese and then validate it for Mainland Chinese patients with low back pain (LBP).MethodsA total of 120 consecutive patients with LBP 3?months who visited our outpatient clinic from December 2011 to March 2012 were asked to complete a questionnaire booklet including the following: (1) the Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMQ) (Fan et al. in Spine 37(10):875–880, 2012), (2) the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) (Zhang et al. in Int J Med Sci 9(7):521–526, 2012), (3) the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (Liu et al. in Spine 34(11):1211–1216, 2009), (4) visual analogue scale (VAS) measure of pain, and (5) COMI. These patients were also asked to complete a second COMI questionnaire and a transition questionnaire (5-point Likert scale: better, a little better, no change, a little worse, worse) and to return the second COMI questionnaire via mail within 1?month.ResultsThe floor effects for the COMI items ranged from 5.8 to 12.5?%. High values (28.3, 27.5, and 25.8?%, respectively) were found for symptom-specific quality of life, social disability, and work disability. Regarding the ceiling effects, the social and work disabilities were relatively high at 17.5 and 24.2?%, respectively. For other items, the values ranged from 0 to 14.2?%. Neither floor nor ceiling effects were found for the COMI summary score. Excellent correlations were found between the COMI pain scores and VAS scores (Rho?=?0.89) and between the COMI pain and the SF-36 bodily pain domain (Rho?=?0.84). Other individual items and summary scores showed a very good correlation (Rho?=?0.54–0.72) with the corresponding questionnaires except for “symptom-specific well-being” (0.31–0.45). One-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The ICC for the entire COMI score was 0.91 (95?% CI 0.85–0.94) and 0.81–0.86 for the two pain scores (back and leg). The “minimum detectable change’’ (MDC 95?%) for the COMI summary score was 1.91 points. No significant difference in the mean values was found for the repeated scores of individual items or the summary score.ConclusionThe Simplified Chinese version of COMI showed satisfactory reliability and good psychometric properties. This concise questionnaire is suitable for widespread use in Mainland China...
机译:目的将2011年12月至2007年12月在中国门诊就诊的连续120例LBP> 3个月的连续LBP> 3个月的中国患者转化为简体中文,然后将其验证为简体中文。要求2012年3月填写一份调查问卷手册,其中包括:(1)罗兰·莫里斯(Roland Morris)残疾问卷(Fan et al。in Spine 37(10):875-880,2012),(2)简明健康调查(SF-36)(Zhang等人在Int J Med Sci 9(7):521–526,2012)中,(3)Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)(Liu等人在Spine 34(11)中: 1211–1216,2009年),(4)视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估疼痛程度,以及(5)COMI。还要求这些患者填写第二份COMI调查表和过渡调查表(5分李克特量表:更好,更好,没有变化,有些差,更差),并在1个月内通过邮件退回第二份COMI调查表。结果COMI项目的下限影响范围为5.8%至12.5%。发现特定症状质量的生活质量,社会残障和工作残障率较高(分别为28.3%,27.5%和25.8%)。在最高限额方面,社会和工作障碍分别较高,分别为17.5%和24.2%。对于其他项目,该值的范围为0到14.2%。没有发现COMI汇总得分的下限和上限影响。发现COMI疼痛评分与VAS评分之间的相关性极佳(Rho?=?0.89),以及COMI疼痛与SF-36身体疼痛域之间的相关性(Rho?=?0.84)。除“有症状特定的幸福感”(0.31-0.45)外,其他各项和摘要得分与相应的问卷具有很好的相关性(Rho?=?0.54-0.72)。单向重复测量方差分析用于确定类内相关系数(ICC)。整个COMI评分的ICC为0.91(95%CI CI 0.85-0.94),两个疼痛评分(背部和腿部)的ICC为0.81-0.86。 COMI摘要分数的“最小可检测变化”(MDC 95%)为1.91分。各个项目的重复得分或总得分的平均值均无显着差异。结论简体中文版的COMI具有令人满意的可靠性和良好的心理测验特性。这份简洁的问卷适合在中国大陆广泛使用...

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号