The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimal Clinically Important Change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for Patients With Neck Pain
Open accessAbstract
In Brief Study Design. Prospective, single-cohort study. Objective. To assess the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) on the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain in patients with neck pain. Summary of Background Data. Both measurement instruments are frequently used in research and clinical practice, but which changes are clinically relevant is still unknown. Methods. The MCIC was estimated with 2 different methods, both integrating an anchor-based and distribution-based approach: the minimal detectable change (MDC) and the optimal cutoff point of the ROC curve. The study population consisted of 183 patients with nonspecific neck pain. Results. The results show an MDC of 10.5 points for the NDI (scale range, 0–50) and 4.3 points for the NRS (scale range, 0–10), and optimal cutoff points of the ROC curve of 3.5 for the NDI and 2.5 for the NRS. Conclusion. The estimated MCIC should be used as an indication for relevant changes in clinical practice. Using the optimal cutoff point of the ROC curve, false positives and false negatives are equally weighted; and if there are no objections doing so, the optimal cutoff point of the ROC curve may be a good choice. Assessing the minimal clinically important change on the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale in patients with neck pain, 2 methods are used: the minimal detectable change and the optimal cutoff point of the ROC curve. The optimal cutoff point of the ROC curve best distinguished those patients who are clinically improved from those who are not.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Farrar, J. T., Young, J. P., LaMoreaux, L., Werth, J. L., & Poole, M. R. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9 · Cited by 5,808
Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: prevalences, consequences and risk groups, the DMC3-study
Picavet, H. S. J., & Schouten, J. S. A. G. (2003) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00372-x · Cited by 1,197
Cited by
2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group
Furlan, A. D., Pennick, V., Bombardier, C., & van Tulder, M. (2009) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3181b1c99f · Cited by 1,663
The Neck Disability Index: State-of-the-Art, 1991-2008
Vernon, H. (2008) · Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.08.006 · Cited by 1,009
Measurement Properties of the Neck Disability Index: A Systematic Review
MacDermid, J. C., Walton, D. M., Avery, S., Blanchard, A., Etruw, E., McAlpine, C., & Goldsmith, C. H. (2009) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.2930 · Cited by 954
Young, I. A., Cleland, J. A., Michener, L. A., & Brown, C. (2010) · American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/phm.0b013e3181ec98e6 · Cited by 290
Olsen, M. F., Bjerre, E., Hansen, M. D., Tendal, B., Hilden, J., & Hróbjartsson, A. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.007 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- Pool, J. J. M., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Hoving, J. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 2007-12
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 3047-3051
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1988764185
- Cited by
- 445
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimal Clinically Important Change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for Patients With Neck Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/brs.0b013e31815cf75b
- The paper
- Pool, J. J. M., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Hoving, J. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2007). Minimal Clinically Important Change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for Patients With Neck Pain. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31815cf75b
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.