Volume 4, 2018
|Number of page(s)||6|
|Published online||01 October 2018|
- Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, et al. (2014) The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 73, 968–974. [Google Scholar]
- Kreis S, Molto A, Bailly F, et al. (2015) Relationship between optimism and quality of life in patients with two chronic rheumatic diseases: axial spondyloarthritis and chronic low back pain: a cross sectional study of 288 patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 13, 78. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Asher AL, Chotai S, Devin CJ, et al. (2016) Inadequacy of 3-month Oswestry Disability Index outcome for assessing individual longer-term patient experience after lumbar spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB (2000) The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine 25(22), 2940–2952. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fisher K, Johnson M (1997) Validation of the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire, its sensitivity as a measure of change following treatment and its relationship with other aspects of the chronic pain experience. Physiother Theory Pract 13, 67–80. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Wynne-Jones G, Cowen J, Jordan J (2014) Absence from work and return to work in people with back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med 71(6), 448–456. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lee J, Lee M, Kim J, et al. (2015) Pain relief scale is more highly correlated with numerical rating scale than with visual analogue scale in chronic pain patients. Pain Physician 18(2), E195–E200 [Google Scholar]
- Fairbank J, Couper J, Davies J, et al. (1980) The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 66, 271–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Martins P, Couto T, Gama A (2015) Auditory-perceptual evaluation of the degree of vocal deviation: correlation between the Visual Analogue Scale and Numerical Scale. Codas 27(3), 279–284. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando P (2015) POLYMAT-C: a comprehensive SPSS program for computing the polychoric correlation matrix. Behav Res Methods 47(3), 884–889. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- DeVine J, Norvell DC, Ecker E, et al. (2011) Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery. Spine 36(21), S69–S74 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Luckenbill D, Goswam R., Grannis KA, et al. (2015) Retrospective lumbar fusion outcomes measured by ODI sub-functions of 100 consecutive procedures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(4), 455–464. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Irmak R, Baltaci G, Ergun N (2016) Long term test-retest reliability of Oswestry Disability Index in male office workers. Work 53(3), 639–642. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Rietveld CA, Hessels J, Van der Zwan P (2015) The stature of the self-employed and its relation with earnings and satisfaction. Econ Hum Biol 17, 59–74. [Google Scholar]
- McCunniff PT, Young ES, Ahmadinia K, et al. (2016) Smoking is associated with increased blood loss and transfusion use after lumbar spinal surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(4), 1019–1025. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Goni VG, Hampannavar A, Gopinathan NR, et al. (2014) Comparison of the Oswestry Disability Index and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in Lumbar Canal Stenosis: an observational study. Spine J 8(1), 44–50. [Google Scholar]
- Aithala JP (2015) Difficulties in using Oswestry Disability Index in Indian patients and validity and reliability of translator-assisted Oswestry Disability Index. J Orthop Surg Res 10, 90. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Costa M, Laurence A, Marshman M (2015) Sex life and the Oswestry Disability Index. Spine J 15(6), 1225–1232. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.