Literature DB >> 10488511

Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain.

S J Taylor1, A E Taylor, M A Foy, A J Fogg.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective cohort study assessing the responsiveness of two disease-specific questionnaires and a generic health questionnaire for patients with low back pain and sciatica.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the responsiveness of the eight scales and two summery scales of the SF-36 questionnaire with that of the Oswestry Disability Index and Low Back Outcome Score questionnaires. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evaluation of treatment outcome is being determined more frequently from a patient's perspective, particularly the impact treatment has on current health status.
METHODS: Patients were recruited from two orthopedic back pain clinics in a tertiary hospital. Patients completed the pretreatment questionnaire 1 month before treatment and follow-up questionnaires a minimum of 2-6 months after treatment. Patients undergoing surgery were also observed for a minimum of 2 years.
RESULTS: Overall, the Oswestry Disability Index was most responsive; however, individual scales from the SF-36 questionnaire showed equal or greater sensitivity to change than the Oswestry Disability Index in each of the patient subgroups. The SF-36 Role Physical scale was prone to floor effects (a high percentage of respondents score zero), and the change scores from the SF-36 Role Emotional scale varied by 100 points in either direction in each of the patient subgroups.
CONCLUSION: Responsiveness varied according to which method was used in its calculation. The responsiveness of the SF-36 questionnaire shows that it can be a useful adjunct in the assessment of patients with low back pain when combined with disease-specific questionnaires.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10488511     DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199909010-00010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  33 in total

1.  [Optimized assessment of the outcome in patients with radicular back pain of the lumbar spine. The modified NASS questionnaire].

Authors:  M Janousek; S Ferrari; U D Schmid; H A Bischoff; M Balsiger; R Theiler
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.107

Review 2.  Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: validation.

Authors:  U Müller; M S Duetz; C Roeder; C G Greenough
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Chao Ma; Shaoling Wu; Lingjun Xiao; Yunlian Xue
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The pain disability questionnaire: relationship to one-year functional and psychosocial rehabilitation outcomes.

Authors:  Robert J Gatchel; Tom G Mayer; Brian R Theodore
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2006-03

Review 5.  Back related outcome assessment instruments.

Authors:  Urs Müller; Christoph Röder; Charles G Greenough
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-16       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Methodological aspects of outcomes research.

Authors:  Rudi Hiebert; Margareta Nordin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-30       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  T Ibrahim; I M Tleyjeh; O Gabbar
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-11-21       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Alan M Jette; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 2.583

9.  Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the NASS outcomes instrument in Spanish patients with low back pain.

Authors:  C Sarasqueta; O Gabaldon; I Iza; F Béland; P M Paz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-02-17       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Outcome scores in spinal surgery quantified: excellent, good, fair and poor in terms of patient-completed tools.

Authors:  Suhayl I Tafazal; Philip J Sell
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-12-21       Impact factor: 3.134

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.