Reliability and validity of Punjabi version of Oswestry Disability Index in patients with mechanical low back pain

Mesenchymal stem cells can improve discogenic pain in patients with intervertebral disc degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The meta-analysis aimed to estimate the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells on lumbar discogenic pain in patients with intervertebral disc degeneration. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases with predetermined search strategy up to 18 September 2022. The clinical studies focusing on evaluating the efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stem cells in patients with intervertebral disc degeneration were identified. The primary outcomes were changes of pain score and Oswestry Disability Index. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used for quality assessment. Review Manager was used to conduct the statistical analysis. Pooled risk ratios were calculated based on the random effect model. Heterogeneity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed. Results: There were 2,392 studies were identified in the initial search, and 9 eligible studies with 245 patients were eventually included in this review. The Visual Analogue Scale score was significantly lower in patients after receiving mesenchymal stem cells therapy (mean difference = 41.62; 95% confidence interval 24.32 to 58.93; Heterogeneity: I² = 98%; p < 0.01). And the pooled mean difference of Oswestry Disability Index was 22.04 from baseline to final follow-up points (95% confidence interval 8.75 to 35.33; p = 0.001; Heterogeneity: I² = 98%; p < 0.001). The pooled reoperation proportion was 0.074 (95% confidence interval 0.009 to 0.175; Heterogeneity: I² = 72%; p < 0.01). There were no serious related adverse events associated with the therapy. Conclusion: The findings of this meta-analysis indicated that mesenchymal stem cells therapy may be effective in relieving pain and improving Oswestry Disability Index significantly in patients with lumbar discogenic pain. Mesenchymal stem cells therapy may also be associated with a lower risk of adverse events and reoperation rates.

Differences in pain, disability, and psychological function in low back pain patients with and without anxiety

Objectives: Non-specific low back pain affects people of all ages and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Chronic low back pain (LBP) reduces working hours, increases comorbidities, and increases rehabilitation needs. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there were differences in pain, dysfunction, and psychological factors between two groups. The supplementary demonstrated the relationship between these influencing factors and anxiety.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was designed to analyze the differences in pain, disability, and psychological function in non-specific LBP patients with and without anxiety. In total, 60 subjects were divided into two groups based on self-rated anxiety scores: 30 patients with SAS score ≥50 were in the low back pain with anxiety group, and 30 for the LBP without anxiety group with SAS score &lt;50. The pain intensity was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale; psychological function, using the Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale, the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, and the Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire; functional disability, using the Oswestry Disability Index and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire; quality of life using 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire; and the quality of sleep using Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and the relationships between variables and anxiety scores were estimated using Spearman correlation analysis.

Results: A total of 60 participants were enrolled after self-rated anxiety was assessed and the full investigation was finished. The analyses showed significant differences of pain intensity (p = 0.034, disability (ODI, p = 0.007; RMDQ, p = 0.012) and psychological function (TSK, p = 0.000; PASS, p = 0.009; FABQ, p = 0.000; SF-36, p = 0.000; and PSQI, p = 0.000) between the two groups. Spearman correlation analysis showed that the anxiety score had significant positive correlations with functional disability (ODI, p = 0.004 and 95% CI = 0.112–0.573; RMDQ, p = 0.003, 95% CI = 0.135–0.586) and psychological function (TSK, p = 0.001, 95% CI = 0.174–0.612), excellent positive correlation with quality of sleep (PASS, p = 0.025, 95% CI = 0.031–0.512), and strongly negative correlations with the quality of life (SF-36, p = 0.000, 95% CI = 0.761–0.433).

Conclusion: We recognized that anxiety in low back pain patients was mainly due to interaction with the intensity of pain, disability level, and a mass of psychological function. The future research direction could be to alleviate the anxiety on the comprehensive efficacy of patients with low back pain.

The internal structure of Brazilian versions of disability questionnaires in patients with chronic low back pain: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Structural validity refers to the degree to which the scores of a questionnaire or scale are an adequate reflection of the construct to be measured. The aim of this study was to perform the analysis of the structural validity of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), and Bournemouth Questionnaire (BQ) in Brazilian respondents with chronic low back pain.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted. The sample was composed by respondents with non-specific chronic low back pain (score ≥3 points on the 11-point Numerical Pain Rating Scale). The internal structure (number of domains and items) of the Brazilian versions of the RMDQ, the ODI, the QBPDS, and the BQ were analyzed by the confirmatory factor analysis.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-two patients were included. Most of the sample consisted of women and overweight. The RMDQ and ODI have a one-dimensional structure and acceptable values for all confirmatory factor analysis fit indices. The QBPDS with 4 domains and 20 items showed the best values of the fit indices. In addition, we did not identify an internal structure for the BQ supported by the confirmatory factor analysis.

CONCLUSION

The ODI and RMDQ present valid internal structure with 1 domain (disability). The QBPDS has a valid internal structure with 4 domains (rest, prolonged postures, ambulation/reach, and bending/carrying). The BQ does not have a well-defined internal structure.

Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: Which Has Superior Measurement Properties in Older Adults With Low Back Pain?

OBJECTIVE

To examine the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of 3 commonly used questionnaires for assessing physical function (ie, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale [QBPDS], and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ]) in older patients undergoing chiropractic care for low back pain (LBP).

DESIGN

Head-to-head clinimetric comparison.

METHODS

Patients completed the ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ at baseline and after 2 weeks of treatment. Reliability was evaluated for internal consistency (Cronbach α), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and measurement error (standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change [SDC]). Structural validity was evaluated through unidimensional confirmatory factor analysis, and construct validity was investigated by a priori hypotheses with other measures. Responsiveness was evaluated by testing a priori hypotheses using data at baseline and at 2-week follow-up.

RESULTS

Two hundred fourteen patients (53% males and 47% females) with a mean age of 66.2 years (standard deviation = 7.8 years) were included, of which 193 patients completed the 2-week follow-up for our responsiveness analysis. The RMDQ, ODI, and QBPDS showed sufficient internal consistency (Cronbach α of .89, .86, and .94, respectively) and test-retest reliability (ICC[2,1] of 0.85, 0.89, and 0.84, respectively). The SDC for the RMDQ was 6.9, for the ODI was 19.1, and for the QBPDS was 23.6, which are values larger than the minimal important change. None of the measures met all criteria for sufficient structural validity, but the RMDQ and ODI exhibited a partial unidimensional fit. The questionnaires had sufficient construct validity and responsiveness.

CONCLUSION

The ODI, QBPDS, and RMDQ have similar measurement properties in older adults with LBP. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(7):457-469. Epub: 18 May 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10802.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Human Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Degenerative Disc Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) can cause severe low back pain, which will have a serious negative impact on the ability to perform daily tasks or activities. For the past few years, mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) transplantation has emerged as a promising strategy for the treatment of DDD. However, the clinical efficacy of MSC in the treatment of DDD still lacks clinical evidence and is controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of MSC transplantation in patients with DDD. We searched major databases using terms from the database's inception through March 2021. The Cochrane bias risk assessment tool was used to assess quality. The analysis showed that MSC therapy could decrease visual analog scale (VAS) scores (SMD = −0.50, 95%CI = −0.68 ~ −0.33, P < 0.00001) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (SMD = −0.27, 95%CI = −0.44 ~ −0.09, P = 0.003). The outcomes with subgroup analysis showed that MSC therapy could decrease VAS scores in 3 months (P = 0.001), 6 months (P = 0.01), 12 months (P = 0.02), and ≥24 months (P = 0.002) and ODI scores in ≥24 months (P = 0.006). Pooled analysis showed that MSC therapy has a higher ratio of patients at most thresholds but particularly at the MIC (minimally important change) (P = 0.0002) and CSC (clinically significant change) (P = 0.0002) in VAS and MIC (P = 0.0005) and CSC (P = 0.001) pain responders in ODI. Adverse events (AE) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE), back pain, arthralgia, and muscle spasms were not statistically significant between the two groups. However, our further statistical analysis showed that MSC therapy may induce AE of TEAE related to study treatment (OR = 3.05, 95%CI = 1.11 ~ 8.40, P = 0.03). In conclusion, this study pooled the main outcomes and showed that MSC therapy could significantly decrease VAS and ODI scores in patients with DDD. Distinctly, the findings of this meta-analysis suggest a novel therapeutic strategy for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) and lumbar dysfunction by DDD.