中国修复重建外科杂志

中国修复重建外科杂志

中文版颈部结局评分评估颈痛患者反应度的研究

查看全文

目的 探讨中文版颈部结局评分(NOOS-C)的反应度,为颈痛患者干预效果的评估提供可靠工具。 方法 对 NOOS 进行跨文化调适形成 NOOS-C。以 2016 年 9 月—2017 年 5 月收治并符合纳入标准的 80 例颈痛患者作为研究对象,干预前后使用 NOOS-C 和中文版颈椎功能障碍指数(NDI-C)进行评估,其中 71 例患者完成问卷调查。采用配对t 检验比较干预前后 NOOS-C 各维度评分及总分差异。计算 NOOS-C、NDI-C 评分干预前后差值(变化值),并基于变化值计算效应大小(effect size,ES)、标准化反应均数(standardized response mean,SRM),分析量表内部反应度。干预前后 NOOS-C、NDI-C 评分行 Spearman 相关分析,分析量表外部反应度。 结果 干预前后 NOOS-C 评分中除活动评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)外,症状、睡眠障碍、日常活动和疼痛、日常生活参与度和总分比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。NDI-C 指数变化值为–12.11%±17.45%、ES 为 0.77、SRM 为 0.69;NOOS-C 分别为(13.74±17.22)分、0.83、0.80。相关性分析显示,NOOS-C 与 NDI-C 干预前后均成负相关(r=–0.914,P=0.000; r=–0.872,P=0.000)。 结论 NOOS-C 具有良好的反应度。

Objective To analyze responsiveness of Chinese version of Neck Outcome Score (NOOS-C) and provide a reliable measure to assess intervention effect for patients with neck pain. Methods Cross-cultural adaptation of NOOS was performed according to the Beaton’s guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Eighty patients with neck pain were recruited between September 2016 and May 2017. And 71 patients completed those questionnaires. Those patients were assessed using NOOS-C and Chinese version of Neck Disability Index (NDI) before and after intervention. The statistic differences of the score of each subscale and the total scale before and after intervention were evaluated by paired-samples t test. Internal responsiveness was determined by effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) based on the calculated difference before and after intervention. External responsiveness was analyzed by Spearman correlation coefficient. Results The differences in symptom subscale, sleep disturbance subscale, participating in everyday life subscale, every day activity and pain subscale, and the scale between before and after intervention were significant (P<0.05) except for mobility subscale (P>0.05). The difference of NDI-C before and after intervention was-12.11%±17.45%, ES was 0.77, and SRM was 0.69. The difference of NOOS-C before and after intervention was 13.74±17.22, ES was 0.83, and SRM was 0.80. Spearman correlation analysis revealed that the relativity about NOOS-C and NDI-C before and after intervention were both negative (r=–0.914, P=0.000; r=–0.872, P=0.000). Conclusion NOOS-C’s responsiveness is good.

关键词: 颈部结局评分; 反应度; 颈痛; 量表; 跨文化调试

Key words: Neck Outcome Score; responsiveness; neck pain; questionnaire; cross-cultural adaption

登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看全文内容。 没有账号,
登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看图表内容。 没有账号,
1. Bliss SJ, Flanders SA, Saint S. Clinical problem-solving. A pain in the neck. N Engl J Med, 2004, 350(10): 1037-1042.
2. 梁兆晖. 针刺治疗慢性颈痛的疗效评价. 广州: 中山大学, 2009.
3. Fejer R, Kyvik KO, Hartvigsen J. The prevalence of neck pain in the world population: a systematic critical review of the literature. Eur Spine J, 2006, 15(6): 834-848.
4. Holtermann A, Hansen JV, Burr H, et al. Prognostic factors for long-term sickness absence among employees with neck-shoulder and low-back pain. Scand J Work Environ Heal, 2010, 36(1): 34-41.
5. Martin BI, Deyo RA, Mirza SK, et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA, 2008, 299(6): 656-664.
6. 宋雪, 杨大伟, 张立源, 等. 揿针治疗颈椎病颈痛的临床观察. 世界中西医结合杂志, 2017, 12(2): 262-265.
7. Juul T, Søgaard K, Roos EM, et al. Development of a patient-reported outcome: the Neck OutcOme Score (NOOS)—Content and construct validity. J Rehabil Med, 2015, 47(9): 844-853.
8. Juul T, Søgaard K, Davis AM, et al. Psychometric properties of the Neck OutcOme Score, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form-36 were evaluated in patients with neck pain. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 79: 31-40.
9. EwaRoos. Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score[EB/OL].(2016-07-01) [2017-03-06]. http://www.koos.nu/index.html.
10. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2000, 25(24): 3186-3191.
11. Wu S, Ma C, Mai M, et al. Translation and validation study of Chinese versions of the neck disability index and the neck pain and disability scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2010, 35(16): 1575-1579.
12. 刘绮, 麦明泉, 肖灵君, 等. 中文版 Oswestry 功能障碍指数评定慢性腰痛患者的反应度研究. 中国康复医学杂志, 2010, 25(7): 621-624.
13. 方贤聪, 程继伟, 盛锡华. Oswestry 功能障碍指数评定腰椎滑脱症患者的反应度和最小有意义变化研究. 中国现代医生, 2017, 55(28): 16-20.
14. 方积乾. 生存质量测定方法及应用. 北京: 北京医科大学出版社, 2000: 63.
15. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol, 2001, 28(2): 406-412.
16. Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol, 1997, 50(3): 239-246.
17. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, et al. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiology, 2000, 53(5): 459-468.
18. 潘发明. 医用统计方法及其 SPSS 软件实现. 合肥: 中国科学技术大学出版社, 2012: 280.