A computer touch-screen version of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument for the lumbar spine

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B

Volumn 87, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 201-204

  Schaeren, S ^a   Bischoff Ferrari, H A ^b   Knupp, M ^a   Dick, W ^a   Huber, J F ^c   Theiler, R ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BASEL   (Switzerland)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c Orthopaedische Klinik   (Switzerland)

^d TRIEMLI HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; GENDER; HUMAN; LUMBAR SPINE; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NORTH AMERICA; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RADIODIAGNOSIS; SPINE DISEASE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COMPUTER PERIPHERALS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPINAL DISEASES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 14044277551     PISSN: 0301620X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B2.15548     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH. The North American Spine Society lumbar spine outcome assessment instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 1996;21:741-9.
2. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-3.
3. Pose B, Sangha O, Peters A, Wildner M. Validation of the North American Spine Society Instrument for assessment of health status in patients with chronic backache. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1999;137:437-41 (in German).
4. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research: a proposal for standardized use. Spine 1998;23:2003-13.
5. Hunsaker FG, Cioffi DA, Amadio PC, Wright JG, Caughlin B. The American academy of orthopaedic surgeons outcomes instruments: normative values from the general population. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 002;84-A:208-15.
6. Caro JJ Sr, Caro I, Caro J, Wouters F, Juniper EF. Does electronic implementation of questionnaires used in asthma alter responses compared to paper implementation? Qual Life Res 2001;10:683-91.
7. Ryan JM, Corry JR, Attewell R, Smithson MJ. A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Qual Life Res 2002;11:19-26.
8. Kleinman L, Leidy NK, Crawley J, Bonomi A, Schoenfeld P. A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care 2001;39:181-9.
9. Theiler R, Spielberger J, Bischoff HA, et al. Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA Index in numeric rating scale format using a computerized touch screen version. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002;10:479-81.
10. Buxton J, White M, Osoba D. Patients' experiences using a computerized program with a touch-sensitive video monitor for the assessment of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1998;7:513-19.
11. Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Homa K, Weinstein JN. Computerized questionnaires and the quality of survey data. Spine 2002;27:1797-801.
12. Saleh KJ, Radosevich DM, Kassim RA, et al. Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys. J Orthop Res 2002;20:1146-51.
13. Wilson AS, Kitas GD, Carruthers DM, et al. Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:268-73.
14. Drummond HE, Ghosh S, Ferguson A, Brackenridge D, Tiplady B. Electronic quality of life questionnaires: a comparison of pen-based electronic questionnaires with conventional paper in a gastrointestinal study. Qual Life Res 1995;4:21-6.
15. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN. Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary?: the responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 2003;28:607-15.
16. Broder MS, Simon LP, Brook RH. Surgical quality: review of Californian measures. BMJ 2004;328:152-3.