Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Slovenian version of the Core outcome measures index for low back pain

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Thai version of the core outcome measures index for the back (COMI-back) in patients with low back pain

PURPOSE

To translate and culturally adapt the Core Outcome Measures Index for the back (COMI-back) into Thai and to evaluate its psychometric properties in Thai-speaking patients with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

The translation process followed a standardized forward-backward method with two independent translators, followed by synthesis and back-translation. An expert committee reviewed the translations for cultural and conceptual equivalence. Pre-testing was done with Thai patients to refine the questionnaire. The validation study included 131 patients with LBP, who completed the Thai COMI-Back along with other validated questionnaires like the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D-5L. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Construct validity was determined by correlating COMI scores with those of reference scales.

RESULTS

The Thai COMI-Back exhibited strong reliability, with Cronbach's alpha values from 0.89 to 0.93 and ICC values over 0.80 for all domains. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with reference scales, with Spearman's rho values ranging from 0.47 to 0.84. Floor and ceiling effects were acceptable for most items, with notable exceptions for symptom-specific well-being and work disability.

CONCLUSION

The Thai COMI-Back shows strong psychometric properties, making it suitable for clinical and research use in Thailand.

Minimal clinical datasets for spine-related musculoskeletal disorders in primary and outpatient care settings: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Effective measurement and monitoring of health status in patients with spine-related musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders are essential for providing appropriate care and improving outcomes. Minimal clinical datasets are standardized sets of key data elements and patient-centered outcomes that can be measured and recorded during routine clinical care. Our scoping review aimed to identify and map current evidence on minimal clinical datasets for measuring and monitoring health status in patients with spine-related MSK disorders in primary and outpatient healthcare settings.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We followed the JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) methodology for scoping reviews. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Index to Chiropractic Literature, MANTIS, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and medRxiv preprint repository were searched from database inception to August 1, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and charted the evidence. Findings were synthesized and summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

After screening 5,583 citations and 301 full-text articles, 104 studies about 32 individual minimal clinical datasets were included. Most minimal clinical datasets were developed for patient populations with spine-involving inflammatory arthritis, nonspecific or degenerative spinal pain, and MSK disorders in general. The minimal clinical datasets varied substantially in terms of the author-reported time-to-complete (1-48 minutes) and the number of items (5-100 items). Fifty percent of the datasets involved healthcare professionals in their development process, and only 28% involved patients. Health domain items were most frequently linked to the components of activities and participation (43.9%) and body functions (28.6%), according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. There is no standardized definition of minimal clinical datasets to measure and monitor health status of patients with spine-related MSK disorders in routine clinical practice. Common core elements identified were practicality, feasibility in a busy routine practice, time efficiency, and the capability to be used across different healthcare settings.

CONCLUSION

Due to the absence of a standard definition for minimal clinical datasets for patients with spine-related MSK disorders, there is a lack of consistency in the selection of key data elements and patient-centered outcomes that should be included. More research on the implementation and feasibility of minimal clinical datasets in routine care settings is warranted and needed. It is essential to involve all relevant partners in the development process of minimal clinical datasets to ensure successful implementation and adoption in routine primary care.