scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Silvano Ferrari

Other affiliations: University of Bologna
Bio: Silvano Ferrari is an academic researcher from University of Padua. The author has contributed to research in topics: Low back pain & Oswestry Disability Index. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 30 publications receiving 652 citations. Previous affiliations of Silvano Ferrari include University of Bologna.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Italian ODI and RMDQ proved to be sensitive in detecting clinical changes after conservative treatment for subacute and chronic LBP, thus allowing cross-cultural comparisons and stimulating cross-national studies.
Abstract: Introduction An ability to assess longitudinal changes in health status is crucial for the outcome measures used in treatment efficacy trials. The aim of this study was to verify the responsiveness of the Italian versions of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) in subjects with subacute or chronic low back pain (LBP).

115 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Sep 2009-Spine
TL;DR: The Italian version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI-I) questionnaire was successfully translated into Italian, showing good factorial structure and psychometric properties, replicating the results of existing language versions of the questionnaire.
Abstract: STUDY DESIGN Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a translated, culturally adapted questionnaire. OBJECTIVE Translating, culturally adapting, and validating the Italian version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI-I), allowing its use in Italian-speaking patients with low back pain inside and outside Italy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Growing attention is devoted to standardized outcome measures to improve interventions for low back pain. A translated form of the ODI in patients with low back pain has never been validated within the Italian population. METHODS The ODI-I questionnaire was developed involving forward-backward translation, final review by an expert committee and test of the prefinal version to establish as better as possible proper correspondence with the original English latest version (2.1a). Psychometric testing included factor analysis, reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach alpha) and test-retest repeatability (Intraclass Coefficient Correlation), concurrent validity by comparing the ODI-I to Visual Analogue Scale, (Pearson correlation), and construct validity by comparing the ODI-I to Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMDQ, and to Short Form Health Survey, Short Form Health Survey-36 (Pearson correlation). RESULTS The authors required a 3-month period before achieving a shared version of the ODI-I. The questionnaire was administered to 126 subjects, showing satisfying acceptability. Factor analysis demonstrated a 1-factor structure (45% of explained variance). The questionnaire showed high internal consistency (alpha = 0.855) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.961). Concurrent validity was confirmed by a high correlation with Visual Analogue Scale (r = 0.73, P < 0.001), Construct validity revealed high correlations with RMDQ (r = 0.819, P < 0.001), and with Short Form Health Survey-36 domains, highly significant with the exception of Mental Health (r = -0.139, P = 0.126). CONCLUSION The ODI outcome measure was successfully translated into Italian, showing good factorial structure and psychometric properties, replicating the results of existing language versions of the questionnaire. Its use is recommended in research practice.

106 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The successfully translated Italian version of the PCS has good psychometric properties replicating those of other versions, including the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Scale.
Abstract: Purpose The aim of this study was to create an Italian version of the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS-I) and evaluate its psychometric properties in a sample with chronic low back pain.

95 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study suggests that the PSEQ and its short versions are responsive measures of pain self-efficacy in patients with CLBP, adding to previous literature on their validity and reliability.

63 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The data from the studies provided information on the methods used and suggest that PLE is the most appropriate tests to detect lumbar instability in specific LBP, however, due to the lack of available papers on other lombar conditions, these findings should be confirmed with studies on non-specific LBP patients.
Abstract: Background Several clinical tests have been proposed on low back pain (LBP), but their usefulness in detecting lumbar instability is not yet clear. The objective of this literature review was to investigate the clinical validity of the main clinical tests used for the diagnosis of lumbar instability in individuals with LBP and to verify their applicability in everyday clinical practice.

50 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results of this review encourage clinicians to consider kinesiophobia in their preliminary assessment and find strong evidence for an association between a greater degree of kines iophobia and greater levels of pain intensity and disability and moderate evidence between agreater degree ofkinesiophobic and higher levels ofPain severity and low quality of life.
Abstract: Objective (1) To explore the level of association between kinesiophobia and pain, disability and quality of life in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) detected via cross-sectional analysis and (2) to analyse the prognostic value of kinesiophobia on pain, disability and quality of life in this population detected via longitudinal analyses. Design A systematic review of the literature including an appraisal of the risk of bias using the adapted Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A synthesis of the evidence was carried out. Data sources An electronic search of PubMed, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubPsych and grey literature was undertaken from inception to July 2017. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Observational studies exploring the role of kinesiophobia (measured with the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia) on pain, disability and quality of life in people with CMP. Results Sixty-three articles (mostly cross-sectional) (total sample=10 726) were included. We found strong evidence for an association between a greater degree of kinesiophobia and greater levels of pain intensity and disability and moderate evidence between a greater degree of kinesiophobia and higher levels of pain severity and low quality of life. A greater degree of kinesiophobia predicts the progression of disability overtime, with moderate evidence. A greater degree of kinesiophobia also predicts greater levels of pain severity and low levels of quality of life at 6 months, but with limited evidence. Kinesiophobia does not predict changes in pain intensity. Summary/conclusions The results of this review encourage clinicians to consider kinesiophobia in their preliminary assessment. More longitudinal studies are needed, as most of the included studies were cross-sectional in nature. Trial registration number CRD42016042641.

205 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The home environment seems to be not adequate in the mobile worker population, with an increased risk for mental health and MSK problems, particularly affecting the spine, thus, improving job productivity and satisfaction and reducing cost.
Abstract: Evidence about the characterization of home workers in terms of both work-related outcomes and health issues is lacking. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to examine the impact of home working on perceived job productivity and satisfaction, work-related stress, and musculoskeletal (MSK) issues. We included 51 mobile workers, collecting data about demographic characteristics, working experience, job productivity, and stress. Job satisfaction was assessed through the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), while MSK pain was investigated by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ). Moreover, a home workplace analysis had to be carried out according to current Italian regulations. Participants declared that they were less productive (39.2%) but less stressed (39.2%) and equally satisfied (51%) compared to the time of office working. Regarding MSK disorders, low back pain (LBP) was referred by 41.2% of home workers and neck pain by 23.5% of them. Neck pain worsened in 50% of home workers, while LBP did not exacerbate in 47.6% of cases. Home workers with MSK pain reported a lower job satisfaction. Depending on our data, the home environment seems to be not adequate in the mobile worker population, with an increased risk for mental health and MSK problems, particularly affecting the spine. Addressing these issues can significantly reduce risks for health, thus, improving job productivity and satisfaction and reducing cost.

165 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Based on existing head-to-head comparison studies, there are no strong reasons to prefer 1 of these 2 instruments to measure physical functioning in patients with NSLBP, but studies of higher quality are needed to confirm this conclusion.
Abstract: Background Physical functioning is a core outcome domain to be measured in nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP). A panel of experts recommended the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to measure this domain. The original 24-item RMDQ and ODI 2.1a are recommended by their developers. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the 24-item RMDQ or the ODI 2.1a has better measurement properties than the other to measure physical functioning in adult patients with NSLBP. Data Sources Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar), references of existing reviews, and citation tracking were the data sources. Study Selection Two reviewers selected studies performing a head-to-head comparison of measurement properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of the 2 questionnaires. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of these studies. Data Extraction The studies' characteristics and results were extracted by 2 reviewers. A meta-analysis was conducted when there was sufficient clinical and methodological homogeneity among studies. Data Synthesis Nine articles were included, for a total of 11 studies assessing 5 measurement properties. All studies were classified as having poor or fair methodological quality. The ODI displayed better test-retest reliability and smaller measurement error, whereas the RMDQ presented better construct validity as a measure of physical functioning. There was conflicting evidence for both instruments regarding responsiveness and inconclusive evidence for internal consistency. Limitations The results of this review are not generalizable to all available versions of these questionnaires or to patients with specific causes for their LBP. Conclusions Based on existing head-to-head comparison studies, there are no strong reasons to prefer 1 of these 2 instruments to measure physical functioning in patients with NSLBP, but studies of higher quality are needed to confirm this conclusion. Foremost, content, structural, and cross-cultural validity of these questionnaires in patients with NSLBP should be assessed and compared.

157 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Overall, there was limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of manual therapy and most reviewed evidence was of low to moderate quality and inconsistent due to substantial methodological and clinical diversity.
Abstract: Background: This systematic review updated and extended the “UK evidence report” by Bronfort et al. (Chiropr Osteopath 18:3, 2010) with respect to conditions/interventions that received an ‘inconclusive’ or ‘negative’ evidence rating or were not covered in the report. Methods: A literature search of more than 10 general medical and specialised databases was conducted in August 2011 and updated in March 2013. Systematic reviews, primary comparative studies and qualitative studies of patients with musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions treated with manual therapy and reporting clinical outcomes were included. Study quality was assessed using standardised instruments, studies were summarised, and the results were compared against the evidence ratings of Bronfort. These were either confirmed, updated, or new categories not assessed by Bronfort were added. Results: 25,539 records were found; 178 new and additional studies were identified, of which 72 were systematic reviews, 96 were randomised controlled trials, and 10 were non-randomised primary studies. Most ‘inconclusive’ or ‘moderate’ evidence ratings of the UK evidence report were confirmed. Evidence ratings changed in a positive direction from inconclusive to moderate evidence ratings in only three cases (manipulation/mobilisation [with exercise] for rotator cuff disorder; spinal mobilisation for cervicogenic headache; and mobilisation for miscellaneous headache). In addition, evidence was identified on a large number of non-musculoskeletal conditions not previously considered; most of this evidence was rated as inconclusive. Conclusions: Overall, there was limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of manual therapy. Most reviewed evidence was of low to moderate quality and inconsistent due to substantial methodological and clinical diversity. Areas requiring further research are highlighted.

132 citations