Validation of the Oswestry Disability Index in Adult Spinal Deformity

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Objective: To examine the validity of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) treated with surgery.

Background: The ODI is a patient-reported outcome measure of low back pain and disability. Although nearly ubiquitous in ASD research, the measure has not been validated in this patient population.

Patients and methods: A registry of patients with ASD was queried for baseline and 1-year PROM data, including the ODI, the Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r), and the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Pain Interference (PI) and Physical Function (PF) CATs. Internal reliability was assessed with Cronbach alpha, where values ≥0.7 are considered reliable. Validity was assessed with Spearman correlation coefficients calculated for the ODI against validated Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-PI and PF, and legacy measures SRS-Pain and SRS-Activity. Responsiveness to change was measured with the adjusted effect size.

Results: A total of 325 patients were enrolled, with 208 completing baseline and 1-year patient-reported outcome measures. The majority (149, 72%) were females and White (193, 93%), median Charlson Comorbidity Index 0 (interquartile range: 0-2). The majority of cases included sagittal plane deformity [mean T1PA: 24.2° (13.9)]. Cronbach alpha showed excellent internal reliability (baseline = 0.89, 1 yr = 0.90). ODI was valid, with strong correlations between PROMIS-PI, PROMIS-PF, SRS-Pain, and SRS-Activity at baseline and 1-year follow-up. All measures were responsive to change, with the ODI showing greater responsiveness than PROMIS-PI, PROMIS-PF, and SRS-Activity.

Conclusions: The ODI is a valid measure of disability as measured by pain and function in patients with ASD. It is responsive to change in a manner not different from validated PROMIS-CAT or the SRS-22r legacy measure. It is multidimensional, however, as it assesses both pain and function simultaneously. It does not measure disability related to self-image and may not account for all disease-related disability in patients with ASD.