Choosing the right outcome measurement instruments for patients with low back pain

Best Practice and Research: Clinical Rheumatology

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1003-1020

  Chiarotto, Alessandro ^a,b   Terwee, Caroline B ^b   Ostelo, Raymond W ^a,b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Health related quality of life; Low back pain; Outcome measurement instruments; Pain intensity; Pain interference; Physical functioning; Psychological functioning; Work

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIA; BECK DEPRESSION INVENTORY; BRIEF PAIN INVENTORY; CENTER FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES DEPRESSION; DEPRESSION ASSESSMENT; EQ 5D 3L; FEAR AVOIDANCE BELIEFS QUESTIONNAIRE; GENERAL HEALTH STATUS ASSESSMENT; HOSPITAL ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION SCALE; HUMAN; LOW BACK PAIN; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PAIN INTENSITY; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PHYSICAL CAPACITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; ROLAND MORRIS DISABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE; SHORT FORM 12; SHORT FORM 36; TAMPA SCALE FOR KINESIOPHOBIA; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; WORK; WORK ABILITY INDEX; ZUNG SELF RATING CLINICAL DEPRESSION SCALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PSYCHOLOGY;

HUMANS; LOW BACK PAIN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PAIN MEASUREMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE;

EID: 85025156220     PISSN: 15216942     EISSN: 15321770     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2017.07.001     Document Type: Review

References (117)

1. Chapman, J.R., Norvell, D.C., Hermsmeyer, J.T., et al. Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine 36 (2011), S54–S68.
2. Grotle, M., Brox, J.I., Vøllestad, N.K., Functional status and disability questionnaires: what do they assess?: a systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires. Spine 30 (2005), 130–140.
3. Clarke, M., Williamson, P.R., Core outcome sets and systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 5, 2016 1.
4. Dwan, K., Altman, D.G., Clarke, M., et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med, 11, 2014 e1001666.
5. Clarke, M., Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials, 8, 2007 1.
6. Boers, M., Kirwan, J.R., Wells, G., et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 745–753.
7. Williamson, P.R., Altman, D.G., Blazeby, J.M., et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials, 13, 2012 1.
8. Chiarotto, A., Ostelo, R.W., Turk, D.C., Buchbinder, R., Boers, M., Core outcome sets for research and clinical practice. Braz J Phys Ther 21 (2017), 77–84.
9. Prinsen, C.A., Vohra, S., Rose, M.R., et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set”–a practical guideline. Trials, 17, 2016 449.
10. Mokkink, L.B., Prinsen, C.A., Bouter, L.M., de Vet, H.C., Terwee, C.B., The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther 20 (2016), 105–113.
11. Organization WH, International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. 2001, World Health Organization.
12. Garrad, J., Bennett, A., A validated interview schedule for use in population surveys of chronic disease and disability. Br J Prev Soc Med, 25, 1971 97.
13. Miles, C.L., Pincus, T., Carnes, D., Taylor, S.J., Underwood, M., Measuring pain self-efficacy. Clin J pain 27 (2011), 461–470.
14. Rehabilitation Measures Database. http://www.rehabmeasures.org/.
15. eProvide Mapi Trust. https://eprovide.mapi-trust.org/.
16. Boers M, Kirwan J, Tugwell P, et al. The OMERACT handbook. http://www.omeract.org/pdf/OMERACT_Handbook.pdf2017.
17. Mokkink, L.B., Terwee, C.B., Patrick, D.L., et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 737–745.
18. Mokkink, L.B., Terwee, C.B., Patrick, D.L., et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 19 (2010), 539–549.
19. Terwee, C.B., Mokkink, L.B., Knol, D.L., Ostelo, R.W., Bouter, L.M., de Vet, H.C., Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 21 (2012), 651–657.
20. Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Vist, G.E., et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336 (2008), 924–926.
21. Bombardier, C., Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine 25 (2000), 3100–3103.
22. Deyo, R.A., Battie, M., Beurskens, A., et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research: a proposal for standardized use. Spine 23 (1998), 2003–2013.
23. Furlan, A.D., Malmivaara, A., Chou, R., et al. 2015 Updated method guideline for systematic reviews in the Cochrane back and neck group. Spine 40 (2015), 1660–1673.
24. Chiarotto, A., Terwee, C.B., Deyo, R.A., et al. A core outcome set for clinical trials on non-specific low back pain: study protocol for the development of a core domain set. Trials, 15, 2014 1.
25. Chiarotto, A., Deyo, R.A., Terwee, C.B., et al. Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J 24 (2015), 1127–1142.
26. Clement, R.C., Welander, A., Stowell, C., et al. A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain. Acta Orthop 86 (2015), 523–533.
27. Deyo, R.A., Dworkin, S.F., Amtmann, D., et al. Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain. Pain Med 15 (2014), 1249–1267.
28. Turk, D.C., Dworkin, R.H., Allen, R.R., et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 106 (2003), 337–345.
29. Gianola, S., Frigerio, P., Agostini, M., et al. Completeness of outcomes description reported in low back pain rehabilitation interventions: a survey of 185 randomized trials. Physiother Can 68 (2016), 267–274.
30. Froud, R., Patel, S., Rajendran, D., et al. A systematic review of outcome measures use, analytical approaches, reporting methods, and publication volume by year in low back pain trials published between 1980 and 2012: respice, adspice, et prospice. PLoS One, 11, 2016 e0164573.
31. Roland, M., Morris, R., A study of the natural history of back pain: part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. spine 8 (1983), 141–144.
32. Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., Ferraz, M.B., Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25 (2000), 3186–3191.
33. Froud, R., Ellard, D., Patel, S., Eldridge, S., Underwood, M., Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 16, 2015 88.
34. Hush, J.M., Refshauge, K.M., Sullivan, G., De Souza, L., McAuley, J.H., Do numerical rating scales and the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire capture changes that are meaningful to patients with persistent back pain?. Clin Rehabil 24 (2010), 648–657.
35. Smeets, R., Köke, A., Lin, C.W., Ferreira, M., Demoulin, C., Measures of function in low back pain/disorders: low back pain rating scale (LBPRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation (PILE), quebec back pain disability scale (QBPDS), and roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RDQ). Arthritis Care Res 63 (2011), S158–S173.
36. Geere, J.H., Geere, J.-A.L., Hunter, P.R., Meta-analysis identifies back pain questionnaire reliability influenced more by instrument than study design or population. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 261–267.
37. Chiarotto, A., Maxwell, L.J., Terwee, C.B., Wells, G.A., Tugwell, P., Ostelo, R.W., Roland-morris disability questionnaire and Oswestry disability index: which has better measurement properties for measuring physical functioning in nonspecific low back pain? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther 96 (2016), 1620–1637.
38. Kopec, J.A., Esdaile, J.M., Abrahamowicz, M., et al. The Quebec back pain disability scale: conceptualization and development. J Clin Epidemiol 49 (1996), 151–161.
39. Alnahhal, A., May, S., Validation of the Arabic version of the quebec back pain disability scale. Spine 37 (2012), E1645–E1650.
40. Christakou, A., Andriopoulou, M., Asimakopoulos, P., Validity and reliability of the Greek version of the quebec back pain disability scale. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabilitation 24 (2011), 145–154.
41. Riecke, J., Holzapfel, S., Rief, W., Lachnit, H., Glombiewski, J.A., cross-cultural adaption of the German Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: an exposure-specific measurement for back pain patients. J pain Res, 9, 2016 9.
42. Speksnijder, C.M., Koppenaal, T., Knottnerus, J.A., Spigt, M., Staal, J.B., Terwee, C.B., Measurement properties of the quebec back pain disability scale in patients with nonspecific low back pain: systematic review. Phys Ther 96 (2016), 1816–1831.
43. Davidson, M., Keating, J.L., A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 82 (2002), 8–24.
44. Kopec, J.A., Esdaile, J.M., Abrahamowicz, M., et al. The quebec back pain disability scale: measurement properties. Spine 20 (1995), 341–352.
45. Mousavi, S.J., Parnianpour, M., Mehdian, H., Montazeri, A., Mobini, B., The Oswestry disability index, the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and the Quebec back pain disability scale: translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions. Spine 31 (2006), E454–E459.
46. Ostelo, R.W., de Vet, H.C., Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatology 19 (2005), 593–607.
47. Ostelo, R.W., Deyo, R.A., Stratford, P., et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 33 (2008), 90–94.
48. Dworkin, R.H., Turk, D.C., Farrar, J.T., et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 113 (2005), 9–19.
49. Beurskens, A., De Vet, H., Köke, A., Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65 (1996), 71–76.
50. Childs, J.D., Piva, S.R., Fritz, J.M., Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine 30 (2005), 1331–1334.
51. Grotle, M., Brox, J.I., Vøllestad, N.K., Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine 29 (2004), E492–E501.
52. Kovacs, F.M., Abraira, V., Royuela, A., et al. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity and disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 32 (2007), 2915–2920.
53. Lauridsen, H.H., Hartvigsen, J., Manniche, C., Korsholm, L., Grunnet-Nilsson, N., Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 7, 2006 1.
54. Lauridsen, H.H., Manniche, C., Korsholm, L., Grunnet-Nilsson, N., Hartvigsen, J., What is an acceptable outcome of treatment before it begins? Methodological considerations and implications for patients with chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 18 (2009), 1858–1866.
55. Maughan, E.F., Lewis, J.S., Outcome measures in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 19 (2010), 1484–1494.
56. Ostelo, R.W., Swinkels-Meewisse, I.J., Vlaeyen, J.W., Knol, D.L., de Vet, H.C., Assessing pain and pain-related fear in acute low back pain: what is the smallest detectable change?. Int J Behav Med 14 (2007), 242–248.
57. Pengel, L.H., Refshauge, K.M., Maher, C.G., Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain. Spine 29 (2004), 879–883.
58. Robinson-Papp, J., George, M.C., Dorfman, D., Simpson, D.M., Barriers to chronic pain measurement: a qualitative study of patient perspectives. Pain Med 16 (2015), 1256–1264.
59. Sheldon, E.A., Bird, S.R., Smugar, S.S., Tershakovec, A.M., Correlation of measures of pain, function, and overall response: results pooled from two identical studies of etoricoxib in chronic low back pain. Spine 33 (2008), 533–538.
60. van der Roer, N., Ostelo, R.W., Bekkering, G.E., van Tulder, M.W., de Vet, H.C., Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 31 (2006), 578–582.
61. Broderick, J.E., Schwartz, J.E., Vikingstad, G., Pribbernow, M., Grossman, S., Stone, A.A., The accuracy of pain and fatigue items across different reporting periods. Pain 139 (2008), 146–157.
62. Revicki, D.A., Chen, W.-H., Harnam, N., et al. Development and psychometric analysis of the PROMIS pain behavior item bank. Pain 146 (2009), 158–169.
63. Ware, J.E. Jr., Sherbourne, C.D., The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30 (1992), 473–483.
64. Ware, J.E. Jr., Kosinski, M., Keller, S.D., A 12-Item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34 (1996), 220–233.
65. Bronfort, G., Bouter, L.M., Responsiveness of general health status in chronic low back pain: a comparison of the COOP charts and the SF-36. Pain 83 (1999), 201–209.
66. Bullinger, M., German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 health survey: preliminary results from the IQOLA project. Soc Sci Med 41 (1995), 1359–1366.
67. Campbell, H., Rivero-Arias, O., Johnston, K., Gray, A., Fairbank, J., Frost, H., Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: an assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine 31 (2006), 815–822.
68. Gatchel, R.J., Polatin, P.B., Mayer, T.G., Robinson, R., Dersh, J., Use of the SF-36 health status survey with a chronically disabled back pain population: strengths and limitations. J Occup Rehabilitation 8 (1998), 237–246.
69. Luo, X., George, M.L., Kakouras, I., et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the short form 12-item survey (SF-12) in patients with back pain. Spine 28 (2003), 1739–1745.
70. Suarez-Almazor, M., Kendall, C., Johnson, J., Skeith, K., Vincent, D., Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology 39 (2000), 783–790.
71. Turner, J.A., Fulton-Kehoe, D., Franklin, G., Wickizer, T.M., Wu, R., Comparison of the Roland–Morris disability questionnaire and generic health status measures: a population-based study of workers' compensation back injury claimants. Spine 28 (2003), 1061–1067.
72. Weigl, M., Ewert, T., Kleinschmidt, J., Stucki, G., Measuring the outcome of health resort programs. J Rheumatology 33 (2006), 764–770.
73. Brooks, R., Group E. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health policy 37 (1996), 53–72.
74. Dolan, P., Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35 (1997), 1095–1108.
75. Mueller, B., Carreon, L.Y., Glassman, S.D., Comparison of the EuroQOL-5D with the Oswestry Disability Index, back and leg pain scores in patients with degenerative lumbar spine pathology. Spine 38 (2013), 757–761.
76. Soer, R., Reneman, M.F., Speijer, B.L., Coppes, M.H., Vroomen, P.C., Clinimetric properties of the EuroQol-5D in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine J 12 (2012), 1035–1039.
77. Whynes, D., McCahon, R., Ravenscroft, A., Hodgkinson, V., Evley, R., Hardman, J., Responsiveness of the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument in assessing low back pain. Value Health 16 (2013), 124–132.
78. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual life Res 20 (2011), 1727–1736.
79. Janssen, M., Pickard, A.S., Golicki, D., et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 22 (2013), 1717–1727.
80. Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J., The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care 42 (2004), 851–859.
81. Tuomi, K., Ilmarinen, J., Jahkola, A., Katajarinne, L., Tulkki, A., Work ability index: institute of occupational health helsinki. 1994.
82. Röder, C., Chavanne, A., Mannion, A., Grob, D., Aebi, M., SSE Spine Tango–content, workflow, set-up. Eur Spine J 14 (2005), 920–924.
83. Shaw, W.S., Hartvigsen, J., Woiszwillo, M.J., Linton, S.J., Reme, S.E., Psychological distress in acute low back pain: a review of measurement scales and levels of distress reported in the first 2 Months after pain onset. Archives Phys Med Rehabil 97 (2016), 1573–1587.
84. Beck, A.T., Ward, C.H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., Erbaugh, J., An inventory for measuring depression. Archives general psychiatry 4 (1961), 53–63.
85. Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., Brown, G.K., Beck depression inventory-II. San Antonio, TX. 1996.
86. Wang, Y.-P., Gorenstein, C., Psychometric properties of the Beck depression inventory-II: a comprehensive review. Rev Bras Psiquiatr 35 (2013), 416–431.
87. Zigmond, A.S., Snaith, R.P., The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta psychiatr Scand 67 (1983), 361–370.
88. Bjelland, I., Dahl, A.A., Haug, T.T., Neckelmann, D., The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosomatic Res 52 (2002), 69–77.
89. Turk, D.C., Dworkin, R.H., Trudeau, J.J., et al. Validation of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in patients with acute low back pain. J Pain 16 (2015), 1012–1021.
90. Amtmann, D., Cook, K.F., Jensen, M.P., et al. Development of a PROMIS item bank to measure pain interference. Pain 150 (2010), 173–182.
91. Askew, R.L., Cook, K.F., Revicki, D.A., Cella, D., Amtmann, D., Evidence from diverse clinical populations supported clinical validity of PROMIS pain interference and pain behavior. J Clin Epidemiol 73 (2016), 103–111.
92. Kean, J., Monahan, P.O., Kroenke, K., et al. Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS pain interference short forms, brief pain inventory, PEG, and SF-36 bodily pain subscale. Med Care 54 (2016), 414–421.
93. Cleeland, C., Ryan, K., Pain assessment: global use of the brief pain inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap 23 (1994), 129–138.
94. Tan, G., Jensen, M.P., Thornby, J.I., Shanti, B.F., Validation of the brief pain inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain 5 (2004), 133–137.
95. Bann, C., Dodd, S.L., Schein, J., Mendoza, T.R., Cleeland, C.S., Validity of the brief pain inventory for use in documenting the outcomes of patients with noncancer pain. Clin J Pain 20 (2004), 309–318.
96. Kerns, R.D., Turk, D.C., Rudy, T.E., The west haven-yale multidimensional pain inventory (WHYMPI). Pain 23 (1985), 345–356.
97. Bernstein, I.H., Jaremko, M.E., Hinkley, B.S., On the utility of the west haven-yale multidimensional pain inventory. Spine 20 (1995), 956–963.
98. Riley, J.L. III, Zawacki, T.M., Robinson, M.E., Geisser, M.E., Empirical test of the factor structure of the west haven-yale multidimensional pain inventory. Clin J Pain 15 (1999), 24–30.
99. Streiner, D.L., Norman, G.R., Cairney, J., Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2014, Oxford University Press, USA.
100. Reeve, B.B., Hays, R.D., Bjorner, J.B., et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 45 (2007), S22–S31.
101. Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care, 45, 2007 S3.
102. Choi, S.W., Reise, S.P., Pilkonis, P.A., Hays, R.D., Cella, D., Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms. Qual Life Res 19 (2010), 125–136.
103. Bruce, B., Fries, J.F., Ambrosini, D., et al. Better assessment of physical function: item improvement is neglected but essential. Arthritis Res Ther, 11, 2009 R191.
104. Fries, J.F., Cella, D., Rose, M., Krishnan, E., Bruce, B., Progress in assessing physical function in arthritis: PROMIS short forms and computerized adaptive testing. J Rheumatol 36 (2009), 2061–2066.
105. Hung, M., Clegg, D.O., Greene, T., Saltzman, C.L., Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in orthopaedic patients. J Orthop Res 29 (2011), 947–953.
106. Hung, M., Hon, S.D., Franklin, J.D., et al. Psychometric properties of the PROMIS physical function item bank in patients with spinal disorders. Spine 39 (2014), 158–163.
107. Hung, M., Stuart, A.R., Higgins, T.F., Saltzman, C.L., Kubiak, E.N., Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma 28 (2014), 439–443.
108. ®) pain interference and physical function item banks–a qualitative study. Health Qual life Outcomes, 14, 2016 77.
109. Rose, M., Bjorner, J.B., Gandek, B., Bruce, B., Fries, J.F., Ware, J.E., The PROMIS Physical Function item bank was calibrated to a standardized metric and shown to improve measurement efficiency. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 516–526.
110. Voshaar, M.A.O., Peter, M., Glas, C.A., et al. Calibration of the PROMIS physical function item bank in Dutch patients with rheumatoid arthritis. PloS One, 9, 2014 e92367.
111. Voshaar, M.A.O., Peter, M., Glas, C.A., et al. Validity and measurement precision of the PROMIS physical function item bank and a content validity–driven 20-item short form in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional measures. Rheumatology 54 (2015), 2221–2229.
112. Brodke, D.S., Goz, V., Voss, M.W., Lawrence, B.D., Spiker, W.R., Man, H., PROMIS (R) PF CAT outperforms the ODI and SF-36 physical function domain in spine patients. Spine 42 (2017), 921–929.
113. Crins, M.H., Roorda, L.D., Smits, N., et al. Calibration and validation of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS pain interference item bank in patients with chronic pain. PloS one, 10, 2015 e0134094.
114. Kim, J., Chung, H., Amtmann, D., Revicki, D.A., Cook, K.F., Measurement invariance of the PROMIS pain interference item bank across community and clinical samples. Qual life Res 22 (2013), 501–507.
115. Antony, M.M., Bieling, P.J., Cox, B.J., Enns, M.W., Swinson, R.P., Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychol Assess, 10, 1998 176.
116. Henry, J.D., Crawford, J.R., The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 44 (2005), 227–239.
117. Parkitny, L., McAuley, J.H., Walton, D., et al. Rasch analysis supports the use of the depression, anxiety, and stress scales to measure mood in groups but not in individuals with chronic low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 65 (2012), 189–198.