Background to the study. The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to measure effectiveness of care, and supporting patient management is being advocated increasingly. When evaluating outcome it is important to identify a PROM with good measurement properties. Purpose of the study. To review the measurement properties of the low back and neck versions of the Bournemouth Questionnaire. Methods. Bibliographic databases (e.g. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycInfo) were searched for articles evaluating the measurement properties of the Bournemouth Questionnaire. Articles were excluded that did not evaluate measurement properties of this instrument. The methodological quality of the studies selected was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist with the four point rating scale. Studies were rated as “excellent”, “good”, “fair” or “poor” based on completion of the checklist. Results. The initial search produced 6265 hits. A total of 13 studies were included in the final evaluation. Seven studies used the Bournemouth Questionnaire neck version, and six studies involved the back version. Cross-cultural translation was reported in six studies, reliability data were reported in eight studies, and responsiveness in ten studies. Conclusion. The review's findings suggest that the Bournemouth Questionnaire has suitable measurement properties for benchmarking practice in musculoskeletal settings. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study was sponsored by the National Council for Osteopathic Research (. www.ncor.org.uk. )

Background & purpose. Measurement inconsistency across clinical trials is tackled by the development of a core outcome measurement set. Four core outcome domains were recommended for clinical trials in patients with non-specific LBP (nsLBP): physical functioning, pain intensity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and number of deaths. This study aimed to reach consensus on core instruments to measure the first three domains. Methods & Results. The Steering Committee overseeing this project selected 17 potential core instruments for physical functioning, three for pain intensity, and five for HRQoL. Evidence on their measurement properties in nsLBP was synthesized in three systematic reviews using COSMIN methodology. Researchers, clinicians, and patients (n = 208) were invited in a Delphi survey to seek consensus on which instruments to endorse as core. Consensus was a-priori set at 67% of participants agreeing on endorsing an instrument. Two Delphi rounds were run (response rates = 44% and 41%). Agreement was reached on endorsing the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 2.1a) for physical functioning, the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity, but not on other instruments. Several participants demanded to have free of charge core instruments. Taking these results into account, the steering committee formulated the following recommendations: ODI 2.1a or 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire for physical functioning, NRS for pain intensity, Short-Form 12 or 10-item PROMIS Global Health for HRQoL. Conclusion. A core outcome measurement set is available for clinical trials in patients with nsLBP. High quality clinimetric studies directly comparing recommended and not recommended instruments are required. Conflict of interest: None. Source of funding: EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe

Background and purpose. To identify methods used to measure free living sedentary behaviour in people with back pain and review the validity and reliability of identified measures. Methods. Databases including CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and the Sedentary Behaviour and Research Network website (. www.sedentarybehaviour.org. ) were searched for relevant published articles up to June 2014. Studies which measured sedentary behaviour in people with back pain were included. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Checklist was used to assess psychometric properties. Results. Six papers were identified; two of high methodological quality. The most common method of data collection was self-report, using activity diaries or questionnaires. Sedentary behaviour measured by accelerometry ranged from 6.7 to 10.7 hours per day whereas results from self-report measures ranged from 5 to 9.4 hours per day. According to the COSMIN checklist, the psychometric properties of the measurement instruments were rated fair to excellent. Conclusion. People with back pain spend a large proportion of their waking day participating in sedentary behaviour. Therefore valid and reliable sedentary behaviour measurements, such as those identified in this study, are essential for assessing the effectiveness of public health interventions and for future population monitoring. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: Department for Employment and Learning