| Name of the Instrument/Tool | Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) |
| First Description |
Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Sep 15;23(18):2003-13.
Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, Malmivaara A, Roland M, Von Korff M, Waddell G. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Sep 15;23(18):2003-13.
|
| Year | 1998 |
| Domains | |
| Concept of constructs | Physical function, Pain |
| Population/Disease | Disease specific |
| Originally developed for | Low Back Pain (LBP) |
| Other rheumatic diseases where can be applied (only if validated) |
--- |
| Additional population with no rheumatic diseases |
No |
| Language: Originally published in | english |
| Available in Language | French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish |
| REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION | |
| Author/s | Deyo RA |
| Title | Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. |
| Journal | Spine |
| Year | 1998 |
| Vol | 23 |
| Num | 18 |
| Pages | 2003-13 |
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Other references of interest | |
| Link | Ferrer M, Pellisé F, Escudero O, Alvarez L, Pont A, Alonso J … |
| Brief Description |
: assessment of reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a purposefully brief outcome instrument in a cohort of patients with subacute osteoporotic fracture or chronic low back pain |
| Link | Fankhauser CD, Mutter U, Aghayev E, Mannion AF. Validity and … |
| Brief Description |
validation for neck pain |
| Instrument/Tool Translations References | |
| Link | Genevay SS, Cedraschi CC, Marty MM, Rozenberg SS, De-Goumons … |
| Brief Description |
French validation |
| Link | Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, Junge A, Grob D, Semmer … |
| Brief Description |
german validation |
| Link | Miekisiak G, Kollataj M, Dobrogowski J, Kloc W, Libionka W, … |
| Brief Description |
polish validation |
| DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION | |
| Correspondence to | Richard A. Deyo |
| deyo@u.washington.edu | |
| Address | Division of General Internal Medicine; University of Washington; Box 356429; Seattle, WA 98195 |
| Website | --- |
| Available | --- |
| Links | |
| DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT | |
| Type Of Measure | Composite Index |
| Brief Description |
originally proposed to condense the measures (pain, symptom specific function, generic well-being, social disability and work disability, along with satisfaction) in a short, easy to use questionnaire. Each of the questions in this short set has been studied and validated in other questionnaires used for patients suffering of low back pain |
| Number of Items | 6 |
| Range | 0-10 |
| Responses options/scale |
Yes Pain scores are indicated on a 0 to 10 graphic rating scale. The response categories for the other items are 5-point adjectival or Likert scales. The two disability items have 5 response categories indicating the number of days with repercussions during the past month. |
| Developed for | Research |
| PRACTICAL APPLICATION | |
| Method of administration | Self-administered |
| Recommendations to score |
A score for each subscale and a sum score are calculated. The pain score is given by the higher of the two pain-scale scores (back or leg). For the other items each incremental “step” is given 2.5 points so that they range from 0 (excellent condition) to 10 (worst condition). The scores for social disability and work disability are averaged to form one disability score. A sum score from 0 (best health status) to 10 (worst health status) can then be computed by the addition of the 5 subscales (pain, function, symptom-specific well-being, general QoL and disability) divided by 5. |
| Score Interpretation | 0 (best health status) to 10 (worst health status) |
| Cut-off points | --- |
| Cut-off points applied to | --- |
| Smallest detectable change if described | --- |
| Smallest detectable change applied to | --- |
| Completion time by the patient | 0 minutes |
| Scoring time by the assessor | 0 minutes |
| Training to score | Not necessary |
| Strengths | --- |
| Limitations | --- |
| OTHER COMMENTS | |
| Other Comments | --- |