Is It Time to Replace the Oswestry Index With PROMIS Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test?

Léon Rijk; Joost T P Kortlever; George W Tipton Jr; David Ring; Mark V Queralt; Austin Spine Study Group

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2020.03.021

Is It Time to Replace the Oswestry Index With PROMIS Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test?

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Sep;101(9):1549-1555. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.03.021. Epub 2020 May 4.

Authors

Léon Rijk¹, Joost T P Kortlever¹, George W Tipton Jr², David Ring³, Mark V Queralt⁴; Austin Spine Study Group

Collaborators

Austin Spine Study Group:
Michael M Farris, Lee E Moroz, Enrique B Pena, Devender Singh, John K Stokes⁵

Affiliations

¹ Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
² Department of Orthopaedics, Austin Regional Clinic, Austin, Texas.
³ Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas. Electronic address: david.ring@austin.utexas.edu.
⁴ Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Pain Medicine Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
⁵ Department of Spine and Scoliosis, Texas Spine and Scoliosis, Austin, Texas.

PMID: 32376327
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.03.021

Abstract

Objective: To address the relative influence of psychological factors on variation in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index (ODI) scores.

Design: Cross-sectional.

Setting: We enrolled patients with low back pain, presenting to clinicians specializing in the treatment of spine conditions in a large urban area.

Participants: New and return English-speaking patients (N=116).

Main outcome measures: The PF CAT and ODI.

Methods: Patients completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale short form, Patient Health Questionnaire short form (PHQ-2), Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire short form (PSEQ-2), PROMIS PF CAT and ODI on a secure tablet.

Results: The 95% CI for the amount of variation in PROMIS PF CAT scores (95% CI, 0.06-0.31) accounted for by psychological measures overlapped with the 95% CI for the amount of variation in ODI scores (CI, 0.26-0.53). PROMIS PF CAT had a strong correlation with ODI (r=-0.69; P<.001). Greater PROMIS PF CAT scores were independently associated with fewer symptoms of depression (β=-1.6; 95% CI, -2.7 to -0.58; P=.003). Higher ODI scores were independently associated with more catastrophic thinking (β=1.2; 95% CI, 0.60-1.88; P<.001) and less self-efficacy (β=-2.4; 95% CI, -3.2 to -1.5; P<.001). PSEQ-2 accounted for the largest proportion of variation in ODI. PHQ-2 accounted for the largest proportion of variation in PROMIS PF CAT. Psychological measures explained more variation in ODI (semipartial R²=0.48 for psychological measures; adjusted R² full model=0.49) than in PROMIS PF CAT (semipartial R²=0.17 for psychological measures; adjusted R² full model=0.31).

Conclusions: The ODI and PROMIS PF CAT are comparably sensitive to psychological factors in patients with persistent lower back pain. Given that the PROMIS PF CAT is more efficient to administer, clinicians might consider using PROMIS PF CAT when assessing physical limitations in patients with persistent lower back pain.

Keywords: Catastrophization; Depression; Low back pain; Patient reported outcome measures; Rehabilitation.

MeSH terms

Adaptation, Psychological
Adolescent
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Computers
Cross-Sectional Studies
Disability Evaluation*
Female
Humans
Low Back Pain / psychology*
Male
Middle Aged
Pain Measurement
Patient Reported Outcome Measures*
Physical Functional Performance
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Self Efficacy
Sex Factors
Socioeconomic Factors
Young Adult