Literature DB >> 15949778

Clinically important outcomes in low back pain.

Raymond W J G Ostelo1, Henrica C W de Vet.   

Abstract

Four important domains directly related to low back pain are: pain intensity, low-back-pain-specific disability, patient satisfaction with treatment outcome, and work disability. Within each of the domains, different questionnaires have been proposed. This chapter focuses on validated and widely used questionnaires. Details of the background and the measurement properties, and of the minimally clinically important change (MCIC) using these questionnaires, are described. The MCIC can be estimated using various methods and there is no consensus in the literature on what the most appropriate technique is. This chapter focuses primarily on two adequate and frequently used methods for estimating the MCIC. We argue that the MCIC should not be considered as a fixed value and that the MCIC values presented in this chapter are used as indications. For patients with subacute or chronic low back pain, the MCIC for pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) should at least be 20mm and for acute low back pain it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be at the level of approximately 35mm. If a numerical rating scale (NRS) is used it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 and 2.5 for patients with acute and chronic low back pain, respectively. For functional disability as measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire it seems reasonable that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 points, whereas an MCIC of at least 10 points when the Oswestry Disability Index is used. For global perceived effect, we argue that the MCIC is most appropriately defined in terms of at least 'much improved' or 'very satisfied', instead of including 'slightly improved'. Finally, we argue that, from the point of view of cost effectiveness, every day of earlier return to work is important. The exact value for the MCIC can be determined, taking into account the aim of the measurement, the initial scores, the target population and the method used to assess MCIC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15949778     DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol        ISSN: 1521-6942            Impact factor:   4.098


  191 in total

1.  Daily functioning and self-management in patients with chronic low back pain after an intensive cognitive behavioral programme for pain management.

Authors:  Miranda L van Hooff; Johannes D van der Merwe; John O'Dowd; Paul W Pavlov; Maarten Spruit; Marinus de Kleuver; Jacques van Limbeek
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-05-27       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Clinical outcomes after treatment with disc prostheses in three lumbar segments compared to one- or two segments.

Authors:  Svante Berg; Nina Gillberg-Aronsson
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-09-30

3.  Changes in the total Oswestry Index and its ten items in females and males pre- and post-surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a 1-year follow-up.

Authors:  Arja Häkkinen; Hannu Kautiainen; Salme Järvenpää; Marja Arkela-Kautiainen; Jari Ylinen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-08-16       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Two-year real-world results of lumbar discectomy with bone-anchored annular closure in patients at high risk of reherniation.

Authors:  Ardeshir Ardeshiri; Larry E Miller; Claudius Thomé
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Rasch analysis of 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Authors:  Megan Davidson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Test-Retest Reliability, Agreement and Responsiveness of Productivity Loss (iPCQ-VR) and Healthcare Utilization (TiCP-VR) Questionnaires for Sick Workers with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

Authors:  Timo T Beemster; Judith M van Velzen; Coen A M van Bennekom; Michiel F Reneman; Monique H W Frings-Dresen
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2019-03

7.  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

Review 8.  Sacroiliac joint fusion for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kiran Kumar Lingutla; Raymond Pollock; Sashin Ahuja
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Direct Tubular Lumbar Microdiscectomy for Far Lateral Disc Herniation: A Modified Approach.

Authors:  Timothy L T Siu; Kainu Lin
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.071

10.  Patient-centered evaluation of outcomes from rehabilitation for chronic disabling spinal disorders: the impact of personal goal achievement on patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Rowland G Hazard; Kevin F Spratt; Christine M McDonough; Colleen M Olson; Elizabeth S Ossen; Eric M Hartmann; Raynee J Carlson; Jenna LaVoie
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 4.166

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.