Comparison of Korean questionnaires for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective study.

IF 2.7 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS

Asian Spine Journal Pub Date : 2026-04-08 DOI:10.31616/asj.2025.0591

Il-Soo Eun, Hak Sang Kim, Han Sol Kim, Yoon Jae Cho, Tae Sik Goh, Jung Sub Lee

{"title":"Comparison of Korean questionnaires for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective study.","authors":"Il-Soo Eun, Hak Sang Kim, Han Sol Kim, Yoon Jae Cho, Tae Sik Goh, Jung Sub Lee","doi":"10.31616/asj.2025.0591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Study design: A prospective study.Purpose: To determine the results of two lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) questionnaires examined for validity in Korean by comparing them with quality of life scores.Overview of literature: Although both LSS questionnaires have been investigated, comparative studies involving both are scarce.Methods: Patients with LSS completed the Korean version of the Fukushima Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Scale (K-FLS), the Korean version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (K-ZCQ), the Korean version of the Oswestry Disability Index (K-ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. To validate K-FLS and K-ZCQ, we evaluated their correlation with K-ODI and VAS using Spearman's rank correlation analysis.Results: Of 140 patients enrolled, 123 completed the reliability assessment (test-retest). Both questionnaires demonstrated significant correlations with K-ODI and VAS. However, K-FLS exhibited stronger correlations with K-ODI and VAS than with K-ZCQ. In the responsiveness analysis (n=27), K-FLS demonstrated a larger effect size than any subscale of K-ZCQ.Conclusions: K-FLS showed superiority in correlation with K-ODI and VAS and had higher responsiveness than K-ZCQ in LSS.","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0591","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: A prospective study.

Purpose: To determine the results of two lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) questionnaires examined for validity in Korean by comparing them with quality of life scores.

Overview of literature: Although both LSS questionnaires have been investigated, comparative studies involving both are scarce.

Methods: Patients with LSS completed the Korean version of the Fukushima Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Scale (K-FLS), the Korean version of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (K-ZCQ), the Korean version of the Oswestry Disability Index (K-ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. To validate K-FLS and K-ZCQ, we evaluated their correlation with K-ODI and VAS using Spearman's rank correlation analysis.

Results: Of 140 patients enrolled, 123 completed the reliability assessment (test-retest). Both questionnaires demonstrated significant correlations with K-ODI and VAS. However, K-FLS exhibited stronger correlations with K-ODI and VAS than with K-ZCQ. In the responsiveness analysis (n=27), K-FLS demonstrated a larger effect size than any subscale of K-ZCQ.

Conclusions: K-FLS showed superiority in correlation with K-ODI and VAS and had higher responsiveness than K-ZCQ in LSS.

查看原文本刊更多论文

韩国腰椎管狭窄问卷的比较：一项前瞻性研究。

研究设计：前瞻性研究。目的：通过比较生活质量评分，确定两份腰椎管狭窄症（LSS）韩国问卷的效度。文献综述：虽然对两种LSS问卷都进行了调查，但涉及两者的比较研究很少。方法：LSS患者完成韩版福岛腰椎管狭窄量表（K-FLS）、韩版苏黎世跛行问卷（K-ZCQ）、韩版Oswestry残疾指数（K-ODI）和视觉模拟量表（VAS）对腰腿疼痛的评估。为了验证K-FLS和K-ZCQ，我们使用Spearman的秩相关分析来评估它们与K-ODI和VAS的相关性。结果：入组140例患者中，123例完成了信度评估（重测）。两份问卷均与K-ODI和VAS有显著相关性。K-FLS与K-ODI和VAS的相关性强于K-ZCQ。在响应性分析（n=27）中，K-FLS比K-ZCQ的任何子量表都显示出更大的效应量。结论：K-FLS与K-ODI、VAS的相关性优于K-ZCQ，对LSS的反应性高于K-ZCQ。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊