title: A Systematic Review of Head-to-Head Comparison Studies of the Roland-Morris and Oswestry Measures' Abilities to Assess Change.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine if the sensitivity to change of Roland-Morris Questionnaire (RMQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores differ when applied to patients with low back pain (LBP). A secondary purpose was to critique the methodological rigour of the identified head-to-head comparison studies.
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic review of five online databases was performed to locate head-to-head comparison studies of the RMQ and the ODI that assessed the sensitivity to change of the two measures. Studies were eligible if they met a pre-determined set of inclusion criteria. A newly developed quality criteria form was used to evaluate the methodological rigour of head-to-head comparison studies.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Although there was a statistically significant difference in favour of the RMQ for two studies, there was no apparent consistent advantage of one measure over the other. Frequent methodological deficiencies included no formal sample size calculation, no formal between-measure comparison, and no independent reference standard.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There was no consistent evidence supporting one measure over the other. Many studies displayed methodological deficiencies.
authors.affiliation: School of Rehabilitation Science ; Hamilton General Hospital.
authors.forename: Anastasia N L
authors.initials: AN
authors.lastname: Newman
authors.affiliation: School of Rehabilitation Science ; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University.
authors.forename: Paul W
authors.initials: PW
authors.lastname: Stratford
authors.affiliation: School of Rehabilitation Science.
authors.forename: Lori
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Letts
authors.affiliation: School of Rehabilitation Science ; Peak Performance Physiotherapy, Hamilton, Ont.
authors.forename: Gregory
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Spadoni
keywords: reproducibility of results; self-report; sensitivity and specificity; systematic review