The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Intel-correlation and Test-Retest Reliability of the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and Their Correlation with Pain Intensity in Low Back Pain Patients
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the intercorrelation between subjective disability, as assessed with the Pain Disability Index (PDI) and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and their correlation with visual analogue scale (VAS) pain intensity ratings. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Questionnaires were administered to 94 patients with chronic low back pain with or without radiation into the legs of at least 3 months' duration. SETTING: Tertiary care center. RESULTS: High correlations were noted between the ODQ and PDI (r = 0.83) and PDI factor 1 (r = 0.84), a subscale of the PDI. Lower correlations were noted between pain intensity (VAS) scores and the ODQ (r = 0.62) and the PDI (r = 0.69). A weaker correlation (r = 0.41) was noted between the ODQ and PDI factor 2. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for test-retest reliability in 20 patients (time interval 1 week) were for the ODQ ICC = 0.83, PDI ICC = 0.91, PDI percentage score ICC = 0.91, PDI factor 1 ICC = 0.87, and PDI factor 2 ICC = 0.73, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present results suggest that either the PDI or the percentage score PDI and also the even shorter-to-administer PDI factor 1 may be useful and reliable tests for the assessment of subjective disability in low back pain patients. As noted by the moderate intercorrelations with pain intensity scores, both the PDI and the ODQ address a broader concept of disability than that directly related to pain intensity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Higher sum scores reflect greater interference of pain with daily activities and good validity and reliability have been demonstrated [34].”
From EFFects of Exposure and Cognitive behavioral Therapy for chronic BACK pain (“EFFECT-BACK”): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fairbank, J. C. T., & Pynsent, P. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 · Cited by 5,851
The Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire
Roland, M. O., & Fairbank, J. C. T. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006 · Cited by 1,913
“83.(39) The disadvantage of increasing the time interval is that natural symptom fluctuation may also be an influence.”
BackgroundMachado, G. C., Maher, C. G., Ferreira, P. H., Pinheiro, M. B., Lin, C.-W. C., Day, R. O., McLachlan, A. J., & Ferreira, M. L. (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.h1225 · Cited by 580
“61 62 This evidence supports the use of drugs for pain relief to improve function in these conditions, and, overall, we have shown consistent results across pain and disability outcome measures.”
ResultResponsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments
Beurskens, A. J. H. M., de Vet, H. C. W., & Köke, A. J. A. (1996) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(95)00149-2 · Cited by 567
Validation of the Turkish Version of the Oswestry Disability Index for Patients With Low Back Pain
Yakut, E., Düger, T., Öksüz, Ç., Yörükan, S., Üreten, K., Turan, D., Frat, T., Kiraz, S., Kırdı, N., Kayhan, H., et al. (2004) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000113869.13209.03 · Cited by 495
Metadata
- Authors
- Grönblad, M., Hupli, M., Wennerstrand, P., Järvinen, E., Lukinmaa, A., Kouri, J.-P., & Karaharju, E. O.
- Affiliations
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- ORCID
- Hupli, Markku
- Venue
- The Clinical Journal of Pain
- Published
- 1993-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 189-195
- ISSN
- 0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2040987404
- Cited by
- 390
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 3.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- Pain Disability Index, low back pain, disability assessment, pain intensity, test-retest reliability, visual analogue scale
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Low Back Pain
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
