Literature DB >> 15937673

Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go?

Anne F Mannion1, Achim Elfering, Ralph Staerkle, Astrid Junge, Dieter Grob, Norbert K Semmer, Nicola Jacobshagen, Jiri Dvorak, Norbert Boos.   

Abstract

The present study examined the psychometric characteristics of a "core-set" of six individual questions (on pain, function, symptom-specific well-being, work disability, social disability and satisfaction) for use in low back pain (LBP) outcome assessment. A questionnaire booklet was administered to 277 German-speaking LBP patients with a range of common diagnoses, before and 6 months after surgical (N=187) or conservative (N=90) treatment. The core-set items were embedded in the booklet alongside validated 'reference' questionnaires: Likert scales for back/leg pain; Roland and Morris disability scale; WHO Quality of Life scale; Psychological General Well-Being Index. A further 45 patients with chronic LBP completed the booklet twice in 1-2 weeks. The minimal reliability (similar to Cronbach's alpha) for each core item was 0.42-0.78, increasing to 0.84 for a composite index score comprising all items plus an additional question on general well-being ('quality of life'). Floor or ceiling effects of 20-50% were observed for some items before surgery (function, symptom-specific well-being) and some items after it (disability, function). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ("test-retest reliability") was moderate to excellent (ICC, 0.67-0.95) for the individual core items and excellent (ICC, 0.91) for the composite index score. With the exception of "symptom-specific well-being", the correlations between each core item and its corresponding reference questionnaire ("validity") were between 0.61 and 0.79. Both the composite index and the individual items differentiated (P<0.001) between the severity of the back problem in surgical and conservative patients (validity). The composite index score had an effect size (sensitivity to change) of 0.95, which was larger than most of the reference questionnaires (0.47-1.01); for individual core items, the effect sizes were 0.52-0.87. The core items provide a simple, practical, reliable, valid and sensitive assessment of outcome in LBP patients. We recommend the widespread and consistent use of the core-set items and their composite score index to promote standardisation of outcome measurements in clinical trials, multicentre studies, routine quality management and surgical registry systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15937673     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-005-0911-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  30 in total

Review 1.  Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness.

Authors:  D E Beaton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review.

Authors:  Phil Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike Clarke; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Sarah Pratap; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-05-18

3.  Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 7.723

4.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation.

Authors:  R A Deyo; P Diehr; D L Patrick
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1991-08

5.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance.

Authors:  R A Deyo; R M Centor
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1986

6.  A methodological framework for assessing health indices.

Authors:  B Kirshner; G Guyatt
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1985

Review 7.  Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines.

Authors:  F Guillemin; C Bombardier; D Beaton
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.

Authors:  A J H M Beurskens; H C W de Vet; A J A Köke
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 10.  Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Assessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires.

Authors:  A J Beurskens; H C de Vet; A J Köke; G J van der Heijden; P G Knipschild
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1995-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  105 in total

1.  Development of a documentation instrument for the conservative treatment of spinal disorders in the International Spine Registry, Spine Tango.

Authors:  J T Kessler; M Melloh; Thomas Zweig; E Aghayev; C Röder
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Cross-cultural adaptation and assessment of the reliability and validity of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) for the Brazilian-Portuguese language.

Authors:  L H F Damasceno; P A G Rocha; E S Barbosa; C A M Barros; F T Canto; H L A Defino; A F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Should smoking habit dictate the fusion technique?

Authors:  A Luca; A F Mannion; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-10-21       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Spine Tango registry data collection in a conservative spinal service: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Samuel Morris; James Booth; James Hegarty
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  What comprises a good outcome in spinal surgery? A preliminary survey among spine surgeons of the SSE and European spine patients.

Authors:  M Haefeli; A Elfering; M Aebi; B J C Freeman; P Fritzell; J Guimaraes Consciencia; C Lamartina; M Mayer; T Lund; N Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-11-08       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Factor analysis of the SRS-22 outcome assessment instrument in patients with adult spinal deformity.

Authors:  A F Mannion; A Elfering; J Bago; F Pellise; A Vila-Casademunt; S Richner-Wunderlin; M Domingo-Sàbat; I Obeid; E Acaroglu; A Alanay; F S Pérez-Grueso; C R Baldus; L Y Carreon; K H Bridwell; S D Glassman; F Kleinstück
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-09-02       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Core Outcome Measure Index for low back patients: do we miss anxiety and depression?

Authors:  C Cedraschi; M Marty; D S Courvoisier; V Foltz; G Mahieu; C Demoulin; A Gierasimowicz Fontana; M Norberg; P de Goumoëns; S Rozenberg; S Genevay
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Money matters: exploiting the data from outcomes research for quality improvement initiatives.

Authors:  Franco M Impellizzeri; Mario Bizzini; Michael Leunig; Nicola A Maffiuletti; Anne F Mannion
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.

Authors:  A F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Having a fit: impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT's unidimensionality assumption.

Authors:  Karon F Cook; Michael A Kallen; Dagmar Amtmann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.