Background: The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is an internationally recognized assessment tool that can assess disability caused by back pain in adults, is an easy-to-use 24-question questionnaire related to activities of daily living, and documents the results and plans of physical therapy. The validity and reliability of the Mongolian version of this assessment method has not been studied in the Mongolian field of physical therapy. The lack of Mongolian versions of assessments specifically aimed at evaluating disability from low back pain provided the rationale for conducting this study. Aim: The goal is to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Mongolian version of Roland-Morris disability questionnaire. Materials and Methods: The validity of the RMDQ-M version was assessed by the expert committee and the reliability was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha using R 4.4.3. Results: When evaluating the validity of the RMDQ-M version among physical therapists, 97.5% (n=39) of the words were all understandable, and 2.5% (n=1) of the words were unclear. The reliability of the RMDQ-M version, measured by Cronbach’s Alpha, ranges from 0.903 to 0.939. Conclusion The RMDQ-M version is considered a valid and reliable tool for assessing low back pain–related disability among patients receiving physical therapy.

After low back pain and knee pain, shoulder pain has been estimated to be the third most common musculoskeletal presentation in primary care. The prognosis for people presenting with musculoskeletal shoulder pain varies widely between individuals with, on average, 50% of people with shoulder pain still reporting symptoms 6months after presenting in primary care. In addition to pain, functional disabilities are common and can interfere with work, hobbies, social, and sporting activities and may also be associated with psychological distress and reduced quality of life. Shoulder pain consequences generate high costs to society.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy or combined with laser versus laser monotherapy in Mongolian patients with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema.Prospective, randomized, single-center, a 12 month, laser-controlled, clinical trial. Participants: One hundred twelve eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the study eye of 35 to 69 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS)letters at 4 m (Snellen equivalent: ≥6/60 or ≤6/12), with visual impairment due to center-involved diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: Patients were randomized into three treatment groups:(I) intravitreal bevacizumab monotherapy (n=42), (II) intravitreal bevacizumab combined with laser (n=35), (III) laser monotherapy (n=35). Bevacizumab injections were given for 3 initial monthly doses and then pro re nata (PRN) thereafter based on BCVA stability and DME progression. The primary efficacy endpoints were the mean change in BCVA and central retinal subfield thickness (CRST) from baseline to month 12.Bevacizumab monotherapy or combined with laser were superior to laser monotherapy in improving mean change in BCVA letter score from baseline to month 12 (+8.3 and +11.3 vs +1.1 letters; both p<0.0001). There were significant difference detected between the bevacizumab and bevacizumab combined with laser treatment groups (p=0.004). At month 12, greater proportion of patients gained ≥10 and ≥15 letters and with BCVA letter score >73 (Snellen equivalent: >6/12) with bevacizumab monotherapy (23.8% and 7.1% and 4.8%, respectively) and bevacizumab + laser (57.1% and 28.6% and 14.3%, respectively) versus laser monotherapy. The mean central retinal subfield thickness was significantly reduced from baseline to month 12 with bevacizumab (−124.4 μm) and bevacizumab + laser (−129.0 μm) versus laser (−62.0 μm; both p<0.0001). Conjunctival hemorrhage was the most common ocular events. No endophthalmitis cases occurred.Bevacizumab monotherapy or combined with laser showed superior BCVA improvements over macular laser treatment alone in Mongolian patients with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema.