Measures of adult back and neck function: The North American Spine Society (NASS) Lumbar Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index, Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale, and Roland-Morris Low Back Pain Measure

Abstract

BACKGROUND Endostatin is a cleaved fragment of collagen Type XVIII and has antiangiogenic activity. The clinical significance of circulating, soluble endostatin (S‐endostatin) is not known. METHODS Pretreatment S‐endostatin and serum vascular endothelial growth factor (S‐VEGF) levels were measured in 143 patients with non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) using competitive enzyme immunoassays and were compared with the levels from a control group (n = 24 participants). RESULTS S‐endostatin levels varied widely from 4.5 ng/mL to 116 ng/mL (median, 29.6 ng/mL), and the median level was higher in patients with NHL compared with patients in the control group (16.4 ng/mL; P = 0.05). High S‐endostatin levels were associated with advanced disease stage (P < 0.0001) and high serum VEGF levels at diagnosis (P = 0.017). The median 5‐year survival rate for patients who had S‐endostatin concentrations within the highest tertile (> 36.0 ng/mL) was only 34% compared with 57% in patients who had lower S‐endostatin levels (P = 0.019). A high S‐endostatin level also was associated with a poor outcome in patients with large cell diffuse and immunoblastic lymphoma, which was the largest subgroup within the series (n = 60 patients). Patients who had high pretreatment levels of both S‐VEGF and S‐endostatin had particularly poor outcomes. High S‐endostatin levels had an independent, adverse influence on survival it was entered as a factor into a multivariate analysis together with the factors included in the International Prognostic Index (relative risk, 1.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.08–2.98; P = 0.0024). CONCLUSIONS High pretreatment levels of S‐endostatin are associated with high serum VEGF levels and poor survival in patients with NHL. Prospective studies are warranted to establish the clinical value of longitudinal S‐endostatin measurements. Cancer 2003;97:2767–75. © 2003 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.11399

Comprehensiveness and validity of a multidimensional assessment in patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective cohort study

“…On the item level, the ODI includes statements of disability / limitation due to pain, pain changes, support needed from other persons or devices (stick or crutches), and quality of movement. The lumping together of diverse concepts blurs the specific function content [ 57 , 58 ]. This finding is endorsed by a systematic review of 36 back-specific questionnaires whose constructs included psychosocial and physical functions as well as pain and sleep [ 54 ].…”

Development and Validation of the iDI: A Short Self-Rating Disability Instrument for Low Back Pain Disorders

“…However, awkward phrasing as well as multiconceptual response categories exhibit its main disadvantages. 28 With regard to simplicity, the RMDQ is comparable to the ODI. Due to its dichotomous response categories, only few information can be gathered per item.…”

“…Due to its dichotomous response categories, only few information can be gathered per item. 28 The NASS is useful in measuring back pain, disability, and neurogenic symptoms. Its limitations include a rather narrow validation range.…”

“…Its limitations include a rather narrow validation range. 28 When used in the context of routine quality management rather than scientific assessments of competing treatment methods, the questionnaire must be short, simple but valid and reliable, self-administered, and allow for easy electronic data sampling and management. Regarding these characteristics, the cited questionnaires leave room for improvements.…”

“…The items walking, sitting, standing, and lifting are part of most back pain disability assessment tools. 28 , 30 The ODI, for example, encompasses additionally self-care, sleeping, social life, traveling, and sex life, which cover activity limitations and participation restriction. However, the latter item frequently leads to nonresponses.…”