Responsiveness and minimal important change for the ProFitMap-neck questionnaire and the Neck Disability Index in women with neck–shoulder pain

Abstract

PurposeThe aim was to determine the responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) of the questionnaire ProFitMap-neck that measures symptoms and functional limitations in women with neck pain. The same measurement properties were determined for Neck Disability Index (NDI) for comparison purposes. MethodsLongitudinal data were derived from two randomized controlled trials, including 103 and 120 women with non-specific neck pain, with questionnaire measurements performed before and after interventions. Sensitivity and specificity to discriminate between improved and not or little changed participants, based on categorization of a global rating of change scale (GRCS), were determined for the ProFitMap-neck indices and NDI by using area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). Correlations between the GRCS anchor and change scores of the questionnaires were also used to assess responsiveness. The change score that showed the highest combination of sensitivity and specificity was set for MIC.ResultsThe ProFitMap-neck indices showed similar responsiveness as NDI with AUC exceeding 0.70 (Range: ProFitMap-neck, 0.74–0.83; NDI, 0.75–0.86). The MIC in the two samples ranged between 6.6 and 13.6 % for ProFitMap-neck indices and 5.2 and 6.3 % for NDI. Both questionnaires had significant correlations with GRCS (Spearman’s rho 0.47–0.72).ConclusionsValidity of change scores was endorsed for the ProFitMap-neck indices and NDI with adequate ability to discriminate between improved and not or little changed participants. Values of minimal important change were presented.

Psychometric properties of the global rating of change scales in patients with neck disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

“…After removal of duplicates, 6027 studies remained and were screened using their title and abstract; leaving 29 articles selected for full-text review. Of these, 16 studies were considered eligible 22–37. The flow of the study selection process is presented in figure 1.…”

“…The 16 eligible studies were conducted between 2006 and 2017 and included 1533 participants with neck pain/disorders (mean of 96 participants per study) 22–32 34–37. Study size ranged from 29 to 200 participants.…”

“…The anchors in those scales varied greatly and are presented in table 1. Only six studies26 31–33 35 36 reported full details regarding the specific questions asked of the patients with neck disorder when a GROC scale was administered. Those questions that were reported are presented in table 4.…”

“…We found 14 studies that examined concurrent validity measures between GROC and another PRO 22 23 25 27–30 32 34–38. Correlations of Pearson’s and Spearman’s coefficients between GROC and another PRO were ranging from very weak to very strong correlations.…”

“…We found that GROC was positively correlated with disability change scores (r=0.53, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.59, I 2 =0%). Six studies27–30 32 36 of very good-to-excellent quality reported the Spearman correlation coefficients between neck disability changes scores and the GROC scores and were pooled together. We found that GROC was moderately correlated with disability change scores (rho=0.56, 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.68, I 2 =85%).…”