Vos Cees J, Verhagen Arianne P, Koes Bart W
Dept. of General Practice, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Eur Spine J. 2006 Nov;15(11):1729-36. doi: 10.1007/s00586-006-0119-7. Epub 2006 May 3.
A prospective cohort study with a 1 week follow-up. To examine the reliability and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with acute neck pain in general practice. An increasing number of studies on treatment options is published in which the NDI is used. Reports of the ability of the NDI to detect change over time, often called responsiveness, however have not yet been published. At baseline 187 patients (119 women, 68 men) were included. They completed a questionnaire on demographic variables, self-reported cause of their complaints and the NDI. After 1 week, 86 patients were sent the NDI again together with the perceived recovery scale which was used as our external criterion. The scale ranged from 1 (complete recovery) to 7 (complaints are worse than ever). Response rate was 93%. Test-retest scores on reliability were good (ICC = 0.90). A Bland and Altman plot and a graph of total sum score differences showed no visible tendency towards unequal spreading of the data. For patients that reported on the perceived recovery scale that they were "stable" we found a responsiveness ratio of 1.82. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was 0.60 what resulted in a minimal detectable change (MDC) of 1.66. The NDI has shown to be a reliable and responsive instrument in patients with acute neck pain in general practice.
一项为期1周随访的前瞻性队列研究。旨在检验荷兰语版颈部功能障碍指数（NDI）在全科医疗中急性颈部疼痛患者中的可靠性和反应性。越来越多使用NDI的治疗方案研究得以发表。然而，关于NDI检测随时间变化能力（通常称为反应性）的报告尚未发表。基线时纳入了187例患者（119名女性，68名男性）。他们完成了一份关于人口统计学变量、自我报告的主诉原因及NDI的问卷。1周后，向86例患者再次发送NDI以及用作外部标准的感知恢复量表。该量表范围为1（完全恢复）至7（主诉比以往更严重）。应答率为93%。可靠性的重测分数良好（组内相关系数=0.90）。Bland-Altman图和总分差异图显示数据无明显的不均等分布趋势。对于在感知恢复量表上报告为“稳定”的患者，我们发现反应性比率为1.82。测量标准误（SEM）为0.60，由此得出最小可检测变化（MDC）为1.66。NDI已证明是全科医疗中急性颈部疼痛患者的一种可靠且有反应性的工具。
