Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in patients with low back pain

Purpose: To conduct a cross-cultural adaptation of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) into French according to established guidelines. Methods: Seventy outpatients with chronic low back pain were recruited from six spine centres in Switzerland and France. They completed the newly translated COMI, and the Roland Morris disability (RMQ), Dallas Pain (DPQ), adjectival pain rating scale, WHO Quality of Life, and EuroQoL-5D questionnaires. After ~14days RMQ and COMI were completed again to assess reproducibility; a transition question (7-point Likert scale; "very much worse” through "no change” to "very much better”) indicated any change in status since the first questionnaire. Results: COMI whole scores displayed no floor effects and just 1.5% ceiling effects. The scores for the individual COMI items correlated with their corresponding full-length reference questionnaire with varying strengths of correlation (0.33-0.84, P<0.05). COMI whole scores showed a very good correlation with the "multidimensional” DPQ global score (Rho=0.71). 55 patients (79%) returned a second questionnaire with no/minimal change in their back status. The reproducibility of individual COMI 5-point items was good, with test-retest differences within one grade ranging from 89% for ‘social/work disability' to 98% for ‘symptom-specific well-being'. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the COMI whole score was 0.85 (95% CI 0.76-0.91). Conclusions: In conclusion, the French version of this short, multidimensional questionnaire showed good psychometric properties, comparable to those reported for German and Spanish versions. The French COMI represents a valuable tool for future multicentre clinical studies and surgical registries (e.g. SSE Spine Tango) in French-speaking countrie

Validity of the French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain patients: a prospective cohort study

Purpose: Among the many questionnaires available to evaluate low back pain (LBP) patients, the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) has the unique advantage to investigate five dimensions using seven short questions. The aim of this study was to explore additional properties of the questionnaire in a French-speaking non-surgical population. Methods: This study was conducted on 168 patients suffering from subacute or chronic LBP and followed up for 6months in three French-speaking countries. In addition to basic psychometric properties (e.g., construct validity, floor and ceiling effect, reproducibility), internal validity was analyzed by a factor analysis using Cronbach's alpha. Responsiveness and sensitivity to change were assessed through minimal detectable change (MDC), effect size, and Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (MCII). We used an anchor-based method with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to assess MCII and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State. Results: Construct validity, reliability (Cronbach's alpha=0.87), reproducibility and the absence of floor and ceiling effects were confirmed. Factor analysis indicated a one-dimensional construct that validates the use of a sum score. The MDC (2.1) was inferior to the MCII (2.3). The limit below which the patient claims to be in a fair condition (Patient Acceptable Symptom State) was set at 3. Conclusions: The COMI is a self-report questionnaire with the capacity to easily and quickly explore several dimensions in patients with LBP that can be then summarized in a meaningful sum score. Additional knowledge provided by our study should encourage the widespread use of the COMI among the spine community

Validity of the French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain patients: a prospective cohort study

Among the many questionnaires available to evaluate low back pain (LBP) patients, the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) has the unique advantage to investigate five dimensions using seven short questions. The aim of this study was to explore additional properties of the questionnaire in a French-speaking non-surgical population

How much does the Dallas Pain Questionnaire score have to improve to indicate that patients with chronic low back pain feel better or well?

PURPOSE: The Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) assesses the impact of low back pain (LBP) on four components (0-100) of daily life. We estimated the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) values of DPQ in LBP patients. METHODS: 142 patients with LBP lasting for at least 4 weeks completed a battery of questionnaires at baseline and 6 months later. Questions for MCII addressed patient-reported response to treatment at 6 months on a five-point Likert scale, while a yes/no question concerning satisfaction with present state was used to determine PASS. MCII was computed as the difference in mean DPQ scores between patients reporting treatment as effective vs. patients reporting treatment as not effective, and PASS was computed as the third quartile of the DPQ score among patients who reported being satisfied with their present state. RESULTS: MCII values were 22, 23, 2 and 10 for daily activities, work and leisure, social interest, and anxiety/depression, respectively. PASS values were 29, 23, 20 and 21 for the four components, respectively. The PASS total score threshold of 24 correctly classified 84.1 % of the patients who reported being unsatisfied with their present state, and 74.7 % of patients reported being satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: These values give information of paramount importance for clinicians in interpreting change in DPQ values over time. Authors should be encouraged to report the percentage of patients who reach MCII and PASS values in randomized clinical trials and cohort studies to help clinicians to interpret clinical results

Major depressive disorder in the general hospital: adaptation of clinical practice guidelines

Major Depressive Disorder is particularly frequent among physically ill inpatients. Despite the considerable human burden and financial costs, Major Depressive Disorder remains under-detected and under-treated. To improve this situation, clinical practice guidelines for the management of Major Depressive Disorder were developed for patients in the general hospital. They were adapted from existing good quality guidelines. A literature search has been conducted to identify guidelines and systematic reviews about the management of Major Depressive Disorder. The quality of the existing guidelines was evaluated by means of the AGREE instrument (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation). Complementary literature searches were necessary to answer questions such as "depression and physical illness" or "antidepressants and somatic medication". The guidelines were discussed by a multidisciplinary internal panel. The final version was reviewed by an external panel. This paper presents the development process and a summary of these guidelines for the management of Major Depressive Disorder. The adaptation of good quality guidelines to local needs requires much time, effort and skills. Easier ways for the adaptation and use of high quality guidelines at the local level may result from better coordination, organization and updating of guidelines at a national or supranational level. [Authors]]]> Depressive Disorder, Major; Hospitals, General; Mental Health Services; Practice Guidelines as Topic eng https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_802520ED427C.P001/REF.pdf info:eu-repo/semantics/submittedVersion info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess Restricted: indefinite embargo Copying allowed only for non-profit organizations https://serval.unil.ch/disclaimer application/pdf oai:serval.unil.ch:BIB_8025CE5AB3D3 2022-05-07T01:21:27Z openaire documents urnserval <oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"> https://serval.unil.ch/notice/serval:BIB_8025CE5AB3D3 Machine learning analyses of antibody somatic mutations predict immunoglobulin light chain toxicity. info:doi:10.1038/s41467-021-23880-9 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1038/s41467-021-23880-9 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/34112780 Garofalo, M. Piccoli, L. Romeo, M. Barzago, M.M. Ravasio, S. Foglierini, M. Matkovic, M. Sgrignani, J. De Gasparo, R. Prunotto, M. Varani, L. Diomede, L. Michielin, O. Lanzavecchia, A. Cavalli, A. info:eu-repo/semantics/article article 2021-06-10 Nature communications, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3532 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/2041-1723 urn:issn:2041-1723 <![CDATA[In systemic light chain amyloidosis (AL), pathogenic monoclonal immunoglobulin light chains (LC) form toxic aggregates and amyloid fibrils in target organs. Prompt diagnosis is crucial to avoid permanent organ damage, but delayed diagnosis is common because symptoms usually appear only after strong organ involvement. Here we present LICTOR, a machine learning approach predicting LC toxicity in AL, based on the distribution of somatic mutations acquired during clonal selection. LICTOR achieves a specificity and a sensitivity of 0.82 and 0.76, respectively, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.87. Tested on an independent set of 12 LCs sequences with known clinical phenotypes, LICTOR achieves a prediction accuracy of 83%. Furthermore, we are able to abolish the toxic phenotype of an LC by in silico reverting two germline-specific somatic mutations identified by LICTOR, and by experimentally assessing the loss of in vivo toxicity in a Caenorhabditis elegans model. Therefore, LICTOR represents a promising strategy for AL diagnosis and reducing high mortality rates in AL

Core Outcome Measure Index for low back patients: do we miss anxiety and depression?

PURPOSE: The Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) is a multidimensional questionnaire that investigates five dimensions in low back pain (LBP) patients, but does not address the psychological dimension. As the biopsychosocial perspective is recognized as important to capture the entire clinical picture of these patients, this multicenter prospective cohort study was designed to investigate the psychometric properties of a modified version of the COMI (COMIAD) which included 2 additional items, exploring anxiety and depression, respectively. METHODS: 168 subacute or chronic LBP patients recruited in spine clinics completed a set of questionnaires before and after treatment (follow-up at 6 months). Construct validity was explored by comparing each item of the COMIAD to validated full-length questionnaires. Thus two additional questionnaires were included to assess the construct validity of the anxiety and depression measures. The psychometric properties of the COMI and COMIAD were then compared. RESULTS: The two new items showed good internal consistency, high correlations with the corresponding full-length questionnaires, no floor or ceiling effect and good reproducibility (test-retest agreement kappa 0.68 for anxiety, 0.62 for depression). The addition of the 2 items did not alter internal validity (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88 and 0.87, respectively). The smallest detectable difference, the Minimal Clinically Important Improvement and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State were only minimally affected by the changes. CONCLUSION: The questions exploring anxiety and depression have good intrinsic and psychometric capacities (i.e., no floor or ceiling effects and high correlations with full-length scales) and did not significantly modify the psychometrics of the original COMI questionnaire. The COMIAD offers the possibility to include the psychological dimension in the multidimensional evaluation without significantly affecting questionnaire length

Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in patients with low back pain.

PURPOSE: To conduct a cross-cultural adaptation of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) into French according to established guidelines. METHODS: Seventy outpatients with chronic low back pain were recruited from six spine centres in Switzerland and France. They completed the newly translated COMI, and the Roland Morris disability (RMQ), Dallas Pain (DPQ), adjectival pain rating scale, WHO Quality of Life, and EuroQoL-5D questionnaires. After ~14 days RMQ and COMI were completed again to assess reproducibility; a transition question (7-point Likert scale; "very much worse" through "no change" to "very much better") indicated any change in status since the first questionnaire. RESULTS: COMI whole scores displayed no floor effects and just 1.5% ceiling effects. The scores for the individual COMI items correlated with their corresponding full-length reference questionnaire with varying strengths of correlation (0.33-0.84, P &lt; 0.05). COMI whole scores showed a very good correlation with the "multidimensional" DPQ global score (Rho = 0.71). 55 patients (79%) returned a second questionnaire with no/minimal change in their back status. The reproducibility of individual COMI 5-point items was good, with test-retest differences within one grade ranging from 89% for 'social/work disability' to 98% for 'symptom-specific well-being'. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the COMI whole score was 0.85 (95% CI 0.76-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the French version of this short, multidimensional questionnaire showed good psychometric properties, comparable to those reported for German and Spanish versions. The French COMI represents a valuable tool for future multicentre clinical studies and surgical registries (e.g. SSE Spine Tango) in French-speaking countries