Hand and Upper Limb Centre Clinical Research Laboratory, St Joseph's Health Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009 May;39(5):400-17. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2009.2930.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of clinical measurement. OBJECTIVE: To find and synthesize evidence on the psychometric properties and usefulness of the neck disability index (NDI). BACKGROUND: The NDI is the most commonly used outcome measure for neck pain, and a synthesis of knowledge should provide a deeper understanding of its use and limitations. METHODS AND MEASURES: Using a standard search strategy (1966 to September 2008) and 4 databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and PsychInfo), a structured search was conducted and supplemented by web and hand searching. In total, 37 published primary studies, 3 reviews, and 1 in-press paper were analyzed. Pairs of raters conducted data extraction and critical appraisal using structured tools. Ranking of quality and descriptive synthesis were performed. RESULTS: Horizon estimation suggested the potential for 1 missed paper. The agreement between raters on quality assessments was high(kappa = 0.82). Half of the studies reached a quality level greater than 70%. Failures to report clear psychometric objectives/hypotheses or to rationalize the sample size were the most common design flaws. Studies often focused on less clinically applicable properties, like construct validity or group reliability, than transferable data, like known group differences or absolute reliability (standard error of measurement [SEM] or minimum detectable change [MDC]). Most studies suggest that the NDI has acceptable reliability, although intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) range from 0.50 to 0.98. Longer test intervals and the definition of stable can influence reliability estimates. A number of high-quality published (Korean, Dutch, Spanish, French, Brazilian Portuguese) and commercially supported translations are available. The NDI is considered a 1-dimensional measure that can be interpreted as an interval scale. Some studies question these assumptions. The MDC is around 5/50 for uncomplicated neck pain and up to 10/50 for cervical radiculopathy. The reported clinically important difference (CID) is inconsistent across different studies ranging from 5/50 to 19/50. The NDI is strongly correlated (>0.70) to a number of similar indices and moderately related to both physical and mental aspects of general health. CONCLUSION: The NDI has sufficient support and usefulness to retain its current status as the most commonly used self-report measure for neck pain. More studies of CID in different clinical populations and the relationship to subjective/work/function categories are required.
研究设计:临床测量的系统评价。 目的:寻找并综合颈部残疾指数(NDI)的心理测量特性和有效性的证据。 背景:NDI 是最常用于颈部疼痛的结果测量方法,对其使用和局限性的深入了解应进行知识综合。 方法和措施:使用标准搜索策略(1966 年至 2008 年 9 月)和 4 个数据库(Medline、CINAHL、Embase 和 PsychInfo)进行了结构化搜索,并通过网络和手动搜索进行了补充。共分析了 37 篇已发表的原始研究、3 篇综述和 1 篇即将出版的论文。两名评估者使用结构化工具进行数据提取和关键评估。对质量进行分级并进行描述性综合。 结果:地平线估计表明可能遗漏了 1 篇论文。评估者对质量评估的一致性很高(kappa = 0.82)。一半的研究达到了质量水平大于 70%。最常见的设计缺陷是未能报告明确的心理测量目标/假设或合理的样本量。研究通常侧重于不太适用于临床的特性,如构念效度或组内可靠性,而不是可转移的数据,如已知的组间差异或绝对可靠性(测量误差标准[SEM]或最小可检测变化[MDC])。大多数研究表明 NDI 具有可接受的可靠性,尽管组内相关系数(ICC)范围为 0.50 至 0.98。较长的测试间隔和稳定的定义可以影响可靠性估计。有许多高质量的已发表(韩国、荷兰、西班牙语、法语、巴西葡萄牙语)和商业支持的翻译版本可用。NDI 被认为是一种一维测量方法,可以解释为区间尺度。一些研究对这些假设提出了质疑。MDC 约为 5/50 用于单纯性颈部疼痛,高达 10/50 用于颈神经根病。不同研究报告的临床重要差异(CID)不一致,范围为 5/50 至 19/50。NDI 与许多类似的指数高度相关(>0.70),与身体和精神健康的一般方面中度相关。 结论:NDI 具有足够的支持和有效性,可以保留其作为最常用于颈部疼痛的自我报告测量方法的当前地位。需要对不同临床人群中的 CID 进行更多研究,并研究其与主观/工作/功能类别的关系。
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009-5
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-1-16
Health Technol Assess. 2001
Health Technol Assess. 2001
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Health Technol Assess. 2006-9
Health Technol Assess. 2024-10
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-4-24
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-1-14
Neurobiol Pain. 2025-5-22
Orthopadie (Heidelb). 2025-8