Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a translated, culturally adapted questionnaire. Translating, culturally adapting, and validating the Italian version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI-I), allowing its use in Italian-speaking patients with low back pain inside and outside Italy. Growing attention is devoted to standardized outcome measures to improve interventions for low back pain. A translated form of the ODI in patients with low back pain has never been validated within the Italian population. The ODI-I questionnaire was developed involving forward-backward translation, final review by an expert committee and test of the prefinal version to establish as better as possible proper correspondence with the original English latest version (2.1a). Psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) and test-retest repeatability (Intraclass Coefficient Correlation), concurrent validity by comparing the ODI-I to Visual Analogue Scale, (Pearson correlation), and construct validity by comparing the ODI-I to Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMDQ, and to Short Form Health Survey, Short Form Health Survey-36 (Pearson correlation). The authors required a 3-month period before achieving a shared version of the ODI-I. The questionnaire was administered to 126 subjects, showing satisfying acceptability. Factor analysis demonstrated a 1-factor structure (45% of explained variance). The questionnaire showed high internal consistency (alpha = 0.855) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.961). Concurrent validity was confirmed by a high correlation with Visual Analogue Scale (r = 0.73, P < 0.001), Construct validity revealed high correlations with RMDQ (r = 0.819, P < 0.001), and with Short Form Health Survey-36 domains, highly significant with the exception of Mental Health (r = -0.139, P = 0.126). The ODI outcome measure was successfully translated into Italian, showing good factorial structure and psychometric properties, replicating the results of existing language versions of the questionnaire. Its use is recommended in research practice.

An ability to assess longitudinal changes in health status is crucial for the outcome measures used in treatment efficacy trials. The aim of this study was to verify the responsiveness of the Italian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) in subjects with subacute or chronic low back pain (LBP). At the beginning and end of an 8 week rehabilitation programme, 179 patients completed a booklet containing the ODI, the RMDQ, a 0–10 numerical rating scale (NRS), and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). A global perception of change scale was also completed at the end of the programme, and collapsed to produce a dichotomous outcome (i.e. improved vs. not improved). Responsiveness was assessed by means of distribution methods [minimum detectable change (MDC); effect size (ES); standardised response mean (SRM)] and anchor-based methods (ROC curves). The MDC for the ODI and RMDQ was, respectively, 13.67 and 4.87; the ES was 0.53 and 0.68; and the SRM was 0.80 and 0.81. ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.71 for the ODI and 0.64 for the RMDQ, thus indicating discriminating capacity; the best cut-off point for the dichotomous outcome was 9.5 for the ODI (sensitivity 76% and specificity 63%) and 2.5 for the RMDQ (sensitivity 62% and specificity 55%). These estimates were comparable between the subacute and chronic subjects. Both the ODI and the RMDQ moderately correlated with the SF-36 and NRS (Spearman’s and Pearson’s correlation coefficients of >0.30). The Italian ODI and RMDQ proved to be sensitive in detecting clinical changes after conservative treatment for subacute and chronic LBP. Our findings are consistent with those published in the literature, thus allowing cross-cultural comparisons and stimulating cross-national studies.

The aim of this study was to create an Italian version of the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS-I) and evaluate its psychometric properties in a sample with chronic low back pain. The PCS was culturally adapted in accordance with international standards. The psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test–retest repeatability (intraclass coefficient correlations), and concurrent validity by comparing the PCS-I with a numerical rating scale (NRS), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) (Pearson’s correlation). It took 4 months to develop an agreed version of the PCS-I, which was satisfactorily administered to 180 subjects with chronic low back pain. Factor analysis revealed a three-factor 13-item solution (68% of explained variance). The questionnaire was internally consistent with one exception (α = 0.92 as a whole; 0.89 for Helplessness, 0.87 for Rumination and 0.56 for Magnification subscales) and showed a high degree of test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.842). Concurrent validity showed moderate correlations with the NRS (r = 0.44), TSK (r = 0.59), RMDQ (r = 0.45), HADS (Anxiety: r = 0.57; Depression r = 0.46) and PANAS (Negative Affect r = 0.54). The minimum detectable change was 10.45. The subscales were also psychometrically analysed. The successfully translated Italian version of the PCS has good psychometric properties replicating those of other versions.

Which is the most effective conservative intervention for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (CNSNP)? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Adults with CNSNP of at least 3 months duration. All available pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcome was adverse events. Overall, 119 RCTs (12,496 patients; 32 interventions) were included. Risk of bias was low in 50.4% of trials, unclear in 22.7% and high in 26.9%. Compared with inert treatment, a combination of active and/or passive multimodal non-pharmacological inventions (eg, exercise and manual therapy) were effective for pain on a 0-to-10 scale at 1 month (MD range 0.84 to 3.74) and at 3 to 6 months (MD range 1.06 to 1.49), and effective on disability on a 0-to-100 scale at 1 month (MD range 10.26 to 14.09) and 3 to 6 months (MD range 5.60 to 16.46). These effects ranged from possible to definite clinical relevance. Compared with inert treatment, anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with another non-pharmacological treatment did not reduce pain at 1 month or 3 to 6 months. At 12 months, no superiority was found over inert treatment on both outcomes. Most mild adverse events were experienced following acupuncture/dry needling intervention. On average, the evidence varied from low to very low certainty. While multimodal non-pharmacological interventions may reduce pain and disability for up to 3 to 6 months of follow-up when compared with inert treatment, the evidence was very uncertain about their effects. Better quality and larger trials are needed to improve the certainty of evidence. PROSPERO CRD42019124501.

Several clinical tests have been proposed on low back pain (LBP), but their usefulness in detecting lumbar instability is not yet clear. The objective of this literature review was to investigate the clinical validity of the main clinical tests used for the diagnosis of lumbar instability in individuals with LBP and to verify their applicability in everyday clinical practice. We searched studies of the accuracy and/or reliability of Prone Instability Test (PIT), Passive Lumbar Extension Test (PLE), Aberrant Movements Pattern (AMP), Posterior Shear Test (PST), Active Straight Leg Raise Test (ASLR) and Prone and Supine Bridge Tests (PB and SB) in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PubMed, and Scopus databases. Only the studies in which each test was investigated by at least one study concerning both the accuracy and the reliability were considered eligible. The quality of the studies was evaluated by QUADAS and QAREL scales. Six papers considering 333 LBP patients were included. The PLE was the most accurate and informative clinical test, with high sensitivity (0.84, 95% CI: 0.69 - 0.91) and high specificity (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85 -0.97). The diagnostic accuracy of AMP depends on each singular test. The PIT and the PST demonstrated by fair to moderate sensitivity and specificity [PIT sensitivity = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.51 - 0.83), PIT specificity = 0.57 (95% CI: 039 - 0.78); PST sensitivity = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.41 - 0.76), PST specificity = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.22 - 0.58)]. The PLE showed a good reliability (k = 0.76), but this result comes from a single study. The inter-rater reliability of the PIT ranged by slight (k = 0.10 and 0.04), to good (k = 0.87). The inter-rater reliability of the AMP ranged by slight (k = −0.07) to moderate (k = 0.64), whereas the inter-rater reliability of the PST was fair (k = 0.27). The data from the studies provided information on the methods used and suggest that PLE is the most appropriate tests to detect lumbar instability in specific LBP. However, due to the lack of available papers on other lumbar conditions, these findings should be confirmed with studies on non-specific LBP patients.

Background: Pain-related self-efficacy is defined as the beliefs held by people with chronic pain that certain activities can be carried out despite the pain. Poor self-efficacy is an obstacle to the recovery and predicts long-term disability. The aims of this study are to investigate the prevalence of poor pain self-efficacy in Italian subjects with chronic low back pain (LBP), and to inquire the relationships between self-efficacy, disability, pain, and main demographic and clinical characteristics.Methods: A secondary multicenter retrospective analysis was done on 310 outpatients with chronic non-specific LBP. The pain self-efficacy measured with the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), the disability measured with the Roland & Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the pain intensity measured with the Numerical Rating Scale were considered variables to investigate, whereas demographic and clinical variables were considered predictors or potential confounders. A 40/60 PSEQ score was adopted as cut-off to distinguish between good and poor self-efficacy.Results: 199 subjects (64.2% of the sample) showed poor self-efficacy. The odds of having poor self-efficacy appeared significantly related to female gender (OR = 1.80, 95%CI [1.12;2.90];p = 0.015) and drugs use (OR = 1.68, 95%CI [1.06;2.70];p = 0.029). Significant relationships also emerged between disability and higher age (β = 0.07, 95%CI [0.01; 0.12];p = 0.02), being female (β = 1.80, 95%CI [0.32;3.29];p = 0.018), low educational level (β = − 1.68, 95%CI [− 2.59;-3.29];p < 0.001), higher height (β = − 0.08, 95%CI [− 0.158;-0.002];p = 0.045), pain duration [mos] (β = 0.01, 95%CI [0.001;0.021];p = 0.041), and drugs use (β = 2.86, 95%CI [1.44;4.27];p < 0.001). The amount of pain appeared significantly related to educational level (β = − 0.47, 95%CI [− 0.76;-0.182];p < 0.001), smoking (β = 0.56, 95%CI [0.09; 1.03];p = 0.021), height (β = − 0.03, 95%CI [− 0.05; − 0.002];p = 0.036), and drugs use (β = 0.81, 95%CI [0.399;1.22];p < 0.001). No significant correlation appeared among weight, body mass index, and referred pain neither in relation to self-efficacy, nor in relation to pain/disability.Conclusions: The majority of our sample, composed of Italian people complained of chronic LBP, shows poor self-efficacy. Female gender and drugs use are significantly related to poor self-efficacy, low educational level negatively influences the amount of perceived pain and disability, and older age and smoking are related to disability and pain intensity, respectively. The knowledge of these sociodemographic and clinical characteristics potentially influencing chronic LBP may be useful to address more efforts towards the most negatively impacted subjects, among the entire population complained of chronic LBP.