Department of General Practice, Erasmus Medical Centre, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Qual Life Res. 2012 May;21(4):659-70. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9965-9. Epub 2011 Jul 7.
To critically appraise and compare the measurement properties of the original versions of neck-specific questionnaires.
Bibliographic databases were searched for articles concerning the development or evaluation of the measurement properties of an original version of a self-reported questionnaire, evaluating pain and/or disability, which was specifically developed or adapted for patients with neck pain. The methodological quality of the selected studies and the results of the measurement properties were critically appraised and rated using a checklist, specifically designed for evaluating studies on measurement properties.
The search strategy resulted in a total of 3,641 unique hits, of which 25 articles, evaluating 8 different questionnaires, were included in our study. The Neck Disability Index is the most frequently evaluated questionnaire and shows positive results for internal consistency, content validity, structural validity, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness, but a negative result for reliability. The other questionnaires show positive results, but the evidence for each measurement property is mostly limited, and at least 50% of the information on measurement properties per questionnaire is lacking.
Our findings imply that studies of high methodological quality are needed to properly assess the measurement properties of the currently available questionnaires. Until high quality studies are available, we recommend using these questionnaires with caution. There is no need for the development of new neck-specific questionnaires until the current questionnaires have been adequately assessed.
批判性评价和比较原始颈部特定问卷的测量特性。
检索了有关原始自我报告问卷的开发或评估的文章,这些问卷用于评估特定颈部疼痛患者的疼痛和/或残疾,这些问卷是专门开发或改编的。使用专门设计用于评估测量特性研究的检查表,对选定研究的方法学质量和测量特性结果进行批判性评价和评分。
搜索策略共产生了 3641 个独特的命中结果,其中有 25 篇文章评估了 8 种不同的问卷,这些文章被纳入我们的研究。颈痛障碍指数是最常评估的问卷,具有内部一致性、内容效度、结构效度、假设检验和反应性的积极结果,但可靠性结果为负。其他问卷也显示出积极的结果,但每个测量特性的证据大多有限,并且每个问卷的测量特性信息至少有 50%缺失。
我们的研究结果表明,需要进行高质量的研究来正确评估现有问卷的测量特性。在高质量研究可用之前,我们建议谨慎使用这些问卷。在充分评估当前问卷之前,无需开发新的特定于颈部的问卷。