Cited by 290Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedical Practices and RehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

Roland-Morris disability questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index: which has better measurement properties for measuring physical functioning in nonspecific low back pain? Systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Chiarotto, Alessandro, Maxwell, Lara J., Terwee, Caroline B., Wells, George A., Tugwell, Peter, Ostelo, Raymond W.·2016·Physical Therapy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Physical functioning is a core outcome domain to be measured in nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). A panel of experts recommended the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to measure this domain. The original 24-item RMDQ and ODI 2.1a are recommended by their developers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the 24-item RMDQ or the ODI 2.1a has better measurement properties than the other to measure physical functioning in adult patients with NSLBP. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar), references of existing reviews, and citation tracking were the data sources. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers selected studies performing a head-to-head comparison of measurement properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of the 2 questionnaires. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of these studies. DATA EXTRACTION: The studies' characteristics and results were extracted by 2 reviewers. A meta-analysis was conducted when there was sufficient clinical and methodological homogeneity among studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine articles were included, for a total of 11 studies assessing 5 measurement properties. All studies were classified as having poor or fair methodological quality. The ODI displayed better test-retest reliability and smaller measurement error, whereas the RMDQ presented better construct validity as a measure of physical functioning. There was conflicting evidence for both instruments regarding responsiveness and inconclusive evidence for internal consistency. LIMITATIONS: The results of this review are not generalizable to all available versions of these questionnaires or to patients with specific causes for their LBP. CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing head-to-head comparison studies, there are no strong reasons to prefer 1 of these 2 instruments to measure physical functioning in patients with NSLBP, but studies of higher quality are needed to confirm this conclusion. Foremost, content, structural, and cross-cultural validity of these questionnaires in patients with NSLBP should be assessed and compared.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2522/ptj.20150420

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-anal- ysis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2011.
  2. Moon J, Kim YC, Park SY, et al. Psycho- metric characteristics of the Korean ver- sion of the Roland-Morris Disability Ques- tionnaire. J Korean Med Sci. 2011;26: 1364 -1370.
  3. Davidson M. Rasch analysis of three ver- sions of the Oswestry Disability Question- naire. Man Ther. 2008;13:222-231.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chiarotto, A., Maxwell, L. J., Terwee, C. B., Wells, G. A., Tugwell, P., & Ostelo, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Chiarotto, Alessandro
Venue
Physical Therapy
Published
2016-10-01
Volume
96
Issue
10
Pages
1620-1637
ISSN
  • 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-6724
OpenAlex
W2336018145
Cited by
290
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 5
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Koninklijk Nederlands Genootschap voor Fysiotherapie
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Keywords
non-specific low back pain, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, physical function, measurement properties, test-retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, internal consistency, questionnaire comparison
MeSH terms
Disability Evaluation, Humans, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, 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