• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

颈部疼痛量表和问卷与国际功能、残疾和健康分类是否兼容?系统评价。

Are neck pain scales and questionnaires compatible with the international classification of functioning, disability and health? A systematic review.

机构信息

Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW 1825, Australia.

出版信息

Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(19):1539-46. doi: 10.3109/09638281003611045.

DOI:10.3109/09638281003611045
PMID:20158372
Abstract

PURPOSE

To identify neck-pain-specific questionnaires and scales that measure functioning and disability and assess whether their contents are comparable to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in LILACS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTSDISCUS databases, identifying questionnaires and scales used to assess neck-related functioning and disability from 1966 to November 2007. Each item of each scale or questionnaire was extracted and classified according to the ICF categories.

RESULTS

The databases yielded a total of 888 articles, of which seven questionnaires were identified and included in the review. A total of 74 items were analyzed, 27 linked to body function, 46 to activities and participation, 1 to environmental factors, and 5 to non-classified items. While the pain disability index tends to focus on limitations to body functions, the functional rating index and the Copenhagen neck functional disability scale appear to be limited to measuring activity. Three questionnaires (the neck Bournemouth Questionnaire, the neck disability index, and the neck pain and disability scale) have demonstrated a well-balanced distribution of items across the ICF components.

CONCLUSION

Most identified questionnaires reflect limitations or restrictions in one component only. These results provide valuable information on the content quality of these questionnaires for health-care providers and researchers.

摘要

目的

确定专门用于测量颈部疼痛患者功能和残疾的问卷和量表,并评估其内容是否与国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)相匹配。

方法

系统检索 LILACS、MEDLINE、CINAHL 和 SPORTSDISCUS 数据库,从 1966 年至 2007 年 11 月,查找用于评估颈部相关功能和残疾的问卷和量表。提取每个量表或问卷的每个项目,并根据 ICF 类别进行分类。

结果

数据库共检索到 888 篇文章,其中有 7 份问卷被确定并纳入综述。共分析了 74 个项目,其中 27 个与身体功能有关,46 个与活动和参与有关,1 个与环境因素有关,5 个与未分类项目有关。虽然疼痛残疾指数倾向于关注身体功能的限制,但功能评定指数和哥本哈根颈部功能残疾量表似乎仅限于测量活动。三个问卷(伯恩茅斯颈部问卷、颈部残疾指数和颈部疼痛和残疾量表)在 ICF 各组成部分之间的项目分布较为均衡。

结论

大多数确定的问卷仅反映了一个组成部分的限制或障碍。这些结果为医疗保健提供者和研究人员提供了有关这些问卷内容质量的有价值信息。

相似文献

1
Are neck pain scales and questionnaires compatible with the international classification of functioning, disability and health? A systematic review.颈部疼痛量表和问卷与国际功能、残疾和健康分类是否兼容?系统评价。
Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(19):1539-46. doi: 10.3109/09638281003611045.
2
Content comparison of questionnaires and scales used in low back pain based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a systematic review.基于国际功能、残疾和健康分类的下腰痛问卷和量表内容比较:系统评价。
Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(14):1167-77. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.637602. Epub 2012 Mar 12.
3
Questionnaires that assess disability in children and adolescents with low back pain adhere to the concepts of the International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF), but lack validity for this population: a systematic review.评估腰痛的儿童和青少年残疾的问卷遵循国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)的概念,但缺乏针对该人群的有效性:系统评价。
Disabil Rehabil. 2024 May;46(10):1979-1989. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2023.2221901. Epub 2023 Jun 16.
4
Content and psychometric evaluations of questionnaires for assessing physical function in people with neck disorders: a systematic review of the literature.评估颈部疾病患者身体功能问卷的内容与心理测量学评价:文献系统综述
Disabil Rehabil. 2018 Sep;40(19):2227-2235. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1334096. Epub 2017 Jun 2.
5
Content comparison of quality of life questionnaires used in head and neck cancer based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a systematic review.基于国际功能、残疾和健康分类的头颈癌生活质量问卷内容比较:一项系统综述
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2008 Jun;265(6):627-37. doi: 10.1007/s00405-008-0641-9.
6
Toward the Development of a Universal Outcome Instrument for Spine Trauma: A Systematic Review and Content Comparison of Outcome Measures Used in Spine Trauma Research Using the ICF as Reference.迈向脊柱创伤通用结局工具的开发:以国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)为参考对脊柱创伤研究中使用的结局测量指标进行系统评价和内容比较
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Feb;41(4):358-67. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001207.
7
Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction: a systematic review.用于测量颈部疼痛或功能障碍功能结局的标准量表:一项系统评价
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Mar 1;27(5):515-22. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200203010-00012.
8
Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain.评估慢性下背痛治疗成功的常用结局指标。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Oct 1;36(21 Suppl):S54-68. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31822ef74d.
9
Measuring common outcome measures and their concepts using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in adults with burn injury: a systematic review.采用国际功能、残疾和健康分类(ICF)测量成人烧伤损伤的常见结局测量指标及其概念:系统评价。
Burns. 2011 Sep;37(6):913-24. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.02.012. Epub 2011 May 6.
10
Functional status and disability questionnaires: what do they assess? A systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires.功能状态与残疾问卷:它们评估什么?对背部特定结局问卷的系统评价
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jan 1;30(1):130-40.

引用本文的文献

1
Structural and Psychometric Properties of Neck Pain Questionnaires Through Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review.通过患者报告结局测量评估颈部疼痛问卷的结构和心理测量特性:一项系统评价。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Jul 10;61(7):1254. doi: 10.3390/medicina61071254.
2
The Comparison of The Efficacy of Photobiomodulation and Ultrasound in the Treatment of Chronic Non-specific Neck Pain: A Randomized Single-Blind Controlled Trial.光生物调节与超声治疗慢性非特异性颈部疼痛的疗效比较:一项随机单盲对照试验
J Lasers Med Sci. 2021 May 17;12:e20. doi: 10.34172/jlms.2021.20. eCollection 2021.
3
The Turkish version of the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire in patients with chronic neck pain: a cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity study.
慢性颈痛患者颈部伯恩茅斯问卷土耳其语版:文化调适、信效度研究
Arch Med Sci. 2019 Oct 23;17(3):708-713. doi: 10.5114/aoms.2019.89322. eCollection 2021.
4
What are important consequences in children with non-specific spinal pain? A qualitative study of Danish children aged 9-12 years.非特异性脊柱疼痛的儿童会有哪些重要后果?一项针对9至12岁丹麦儿童的定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 20;10(10):e037315. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037315.
5
Psychometric testing of a short-form questionnaire for the measurement of health experiences among people with musculoskeletal disorders undergoing multimodal rehabilitation.用于测量接受多模式康复治疗的肌肉骨骼疾病患者健康体验的短式问卷的心理计量学测试。
BMJ Open. 2019 May 19;9(5):e025103. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025103.
6
Development, validity and reliability of the Italian version of the Copenhagen neck functional disability scale.哥本哈根颈部功能障碍量表意大利语版的开发、效度与信度
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Nov 23;19(1):409. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2332-z.
7
Validity and Reliability of the Arabic Version of the Copenhagen Neck Functional Disability Scale in Neck Pain Patients.哥本哈根颈部功能障碍量表阿拉伯语版本在颈部疼痛患者中的效度和信度
Asian Spine J. 2018 Oct;12(5):817-822. doi: 10.31616/asj.2018.12.5.817. Epub 2018 Sep 10.
8
Patient-reported outcome measures for non-specific neck pain validated in the Italian-language: a systematic review.意大利语验证的非特异性颈部疼痛患者报告结局量表:一项系统评价。
Arch Physiother. 2016 Jul 22;6:9. doi: 10.1186/s40945-016-0024-2. eCollection 2016.
9
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire in the Italian population.《颈部伯恩茅斯问卷》在意大利人群中的跨文化调适与验证
Qual Life Res. 2015 Mar;24(3):735-45. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0806-5. Epub 2014 Sep 21.
10
Linking self-determined functional problems of patients with neck pain to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).将颈部疼痛患者的自主性功能问题与《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》(ICF)相联系。
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;6:749-55. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S36165. Epub 2012 Oct 23.