Development and evaluation of 'neck pain and functional limitation scale': A validation study in the Asian context.

Background :There is a paucity of literature on validated outcome measurement tools for evaluation of neck pain and related disability in the Asian context. Aim :The main aim of the present study was to design a new tool called neck pain functional limitation scale (NPFLS) for measuring disability related to neck pain and observe its reliability, concurrent validity and criterion validity. Setting and design :This study was performed at the institutional hospital. Materials and methods :A total of 157 subjects (neck pain group) and 25 control subjects (control group) without neck pain were recruited for this study. NPFLS was framed as a new tool for this study, which consisted of 5 domains - pain intensity, activities of daily living, social activities, functional activities and psychological factors. Neck Bournemouth questionnaire (NBQ) was used as a gold standard to measure the concurrent validity and criterion validity of the NPFLS. Statistical analysis :Criterion validity and concurrent validity between the neck Bournemouth questionnaire (NBQ) and NPFLS scores were tested statistically using Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation test. The reliability was tested by examining the internal consistency to calculate the Cronbach's alpha value for each item in NPFLS. Results : No significant difference between NPFLS and NBQ was observed using Mann-Whitney U Test, with P value greater than 0.05 (P= 0.557). Besides that, NPFLS had a high concurrent validity (r= 0.916) and good internal consistency with high Cronbach's alpha value of (r= 0.948), which demonstrated strong correlation between the items of NPFLS and NBQ. Conclusion : NPFLS demonstrated good reliability, high concurrent validity and criterion validity in this study. NPFLS can be used to assess neck pain and disability among patients with neck pain.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation: extracapsular cataract extraction versus phacoemulsification.

A randomized single blinded clinical trial to compare the cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery between extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) and phacoemulsification (PEA) was conducted at Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (HUKM) from March 2000 until August 2001. The cost of a cataract surgery incurred by hospital, patients and households were calculated preoperatively, one week, two months (for both techniques) and six months (for ECCE only). Effectiveness of cataract surgery was assessed using Visual Function 14 (VF-14), quality of life measurement specifically for vision. The cost analysis results from each 50 subjects of ECCE and PEA group showed that average cost for one ECCE after six months post-operation is USD 458 (± USD 72) and for PEA is USD 528 (± USD 125). VF-14 score showed a significant increased after a week, two months and six months post-operation compared to the score before operation for both techniques (p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference between them (p = 0.225). This study indicated that ECCE is more cost effective compared to PEA with cost per one unit increment of VF-14 score of USD 14 compared to USD 20 for PEA.