PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11074683

The Oswestry Disability Index.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) has become one of the principal condition-specific outcome measures used in the management of spinal disorders. This review is based on publications using the ODI identified from the authors' personal databases, the Science Citation Index, and hand searches of Spine and current textbooks of spinal disorders. OBJECTIVES: To review the versions of this instrument, document methods by which it has been validated, collate data from scores found in normal and back pain populations, provide curves for power calculations in studies using the ODI, and maintain the ODI as a gold standard outcome measure. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It has now been 20 years since its original publication. More than 200 citations exist in the Science Citation Index. The authors have a large correspondence file relating to the ODI, that is cited in most of the large textbooks related to spinal disorders. METHODS: All the published versions of the questionnaire were identified. A systematic review of this literature was made. The various reports of validation were collated and related to a version. RESULTS: Four versions of the ODI are available in English and nine in other languages. Some published versions contain misprints, and many omit the scoring system. At least 114 studies contain usable data. These data provide both validation and standards for other users and indicate the power of the instrument for detecting change in sample populations. CONCLUSIONS: The ODI remains a valid and vigorous measure and has been a worthwhile outcome measure. The process of using the ODI is reviewed and should be the subject of further research. The receiver operating characteristics should be explored in a population with higher self-report disabilities. The behavior of the instrument is incompletely understood, particularly in sensitivity to real change.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J C Fairbank, P B Pynsent. 2000-11-15. The Oswestry Disability Index.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: evaluation of three strategies.

AIM: This paper presents an evaluation of the effectiveness of three search strategies to identify research for a qualitative synthesis of patient experiences of living with a leg ulcer. BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of research are increasingly the form of evidence used for evaluation of health care. There are well-established methods for conducting systematic reviews of effectiveness incorporating randomized controlled trials. Methods have been developed for the synthesis of qualitative research, but these are not widely used or evaluated. Searching for qualitative research is one of the least developed and tested areas in systematic reviewing of qualitative research. METHOD: The replication of three search strategies (free text, thesaurus and broad-based terms) developed for identification of qualitative research papers within electronic databases is described. Each strategy was run in seven electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, Social Science Citation Index, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, PsychInfo. The effectiveness of these strategies for identifying qualitative research for a synthesis of patients' experiences of living with a leg ulcer is discussed. FINDINGS: Each of the three search strategies produced similar numbers of potentially and actually relevant papers from each of the seven databases. These results were most striking for CINAHL, when all of the papers ultimately included in the review were identified by each search strategy. No other database identified all included papers. CONCLUSION: A simple search strategy using broad-based terms was as effective as a complex one (free text) in locating qualitative research examining patients' experiences of living with a leg ulcer. For a question with a clear nursing focus, it may be sufficient to search only CINAHL in order to locate qualitative research. This result needs replicating with other nursing topics.

Databases, Bibliographic↗

Serving our colleagues: reference and history of medicine services from the National Library of Medicine.

Most biomedical librarians are frequent users of the major online services provided by the National Library of Medicine (NLM), part of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. These services include MEDLINE/PubMed, MedlinePlus, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed Central, document delivery, and other key biomedical resources. This article highlights less well-known services from reference, to historical information, to training and other services which librarians may not be aware the NLM offers to them. NLM encourages librarians to consider that NLM's unique and unsurpassed collection can help when local resources may be too limited to serve the needs of their patrons. doi:10.1300/J115v26n01_07.

Databases, Bibliographic↗

PubMed vs. HighWire Press: a head-to-head comparison of two medical literature search engines.

PubMed and HighWire Press are both useful medical literature search engines available for free to anyone on the internet. We measured retrieval accuracy, number of results generated, retrieval speed, features and search tools on HighWire Press and PubMed using the quick search features of each. We found that using HighWire Press resulted in a higher likelihood of retrieving the desired article and higher number of search results than the same search on PubMed. PubMed was faster than HighWire Press in delivering search results regardless of search settings. There are considerable differences in search features between these two search engines.

Databases, Bibliographic↗