Literature DB >> 16119224

Differences among outcome measures in occupational low back pain.

Sue A Ferguson1, William S Marras, Deborah L Burr.   

Abstract

The rate of recurrence in low back pain patients has been reported as high as 70%; therefore, it is believed that researchers have a poor understanding of low back pain recovery. To enhance our understanding of recovery, a large cross-sectional study was conducted to compare outcome measures of return to work, impairment of activities of daily living, pain symptoms, and functional performance probability. A total of 208 workers were examined. The percentage of workers recovered based on return to work criteria was 99% compared to 25% for impairment of activities of daily living, 17% for symptoms, and 12.5% for functional performance probability. Single functional performance measures of range of motion, velocity, and acceleration had recovery rates of 59, 13, and 10%, respectively. It appears that all these criteria are measuring very different parameters of low back pain recovery. The residual loss in functional performance may indicate a decreased tolerance to physical demand providing potential insight for why recurrent low back pain rates are high.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16119224     DOI: 10.1007/s10926-005-5940-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Rehabil        ISSN: 1053-0487


  67 in total

1.  Physical impairment index: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with acute low back pain.

Authors:  Julie M Fritz; Sara R Piva
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance.

Authors:  Johan W S Vlaeyen; Ank M J Kole-Snijders; Ruben G B Boeren; H van Eek
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 6.961

3.  The quantification of low back disorder using motion measures. Methodology and validation.

Authors:  W S Marras; S A Ferguson; P Gupta; S Bose; M Parnianpour; J Y Kim; R R Crowell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1999-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Do attitudes and beliefs influence work loss due to low back trouble?

Authors:  T L Symonds; A K Burton; K M Tillotson; C J Main
Journal:  Occup Med (Lond)       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 1.611

5.  Determinants of return-to-work among low back pain patients.

Authors:  Rollin M Gallagher; Virginia Rauh; Larry D Haugh; Raymond Milhous; Peter W Callas; Régis Langelier; Joan M McClallen; John Frymoyer
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 6.961

6.  Use of noninvasive techniques for quantification of spinal range-of-motion in normal subjects and chronic low-back dysfunction patients.

Authors:  T G Mayer; A F Tencer; S Kristoferson; V Mooney
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Serial lumbar dynamometry in low back pain.

Authors:  C Cooke; M R Menard; G N Beach; S R Locke; G H Hirsch
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Risk of recurrence of occupational back pain over three year follow up.

Authors:  L Abenhaim; S Suissa; M Rossignol
Journal:  Br J Ind Med       Date:  1988-12

9.  Psychosocial job factors and symptoms from the locomotor system--a multicausal analysis.

Authors:  T Theorell; K Harms-Ringdahl; G Ahlberg-Hultén; B Westin
Journal:  Scand J Rehabil Med       Date:  1991

10.  Disability exaggeration as a predictor of functional restoration outcomes for patients with chronic low-back pain.

Authors:  R G Hazard; A Bendix; J W Fenwick
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  4 in total

1.  Biomechanical, psychosocial and individual risk factors predicting low back functional impairment among furniture distribution employees.

Authors:  Sue A Ferguson; W Gary Allread; Deborah L Burr; Catherine Heaney; William S Marras
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  Low back functional health status of patient handlers.

Authors:  Sue A Ferguson; Dustin R Grooms; James A Onate; Safdar N Khan; William S Marras
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2015-06

3.  An ounce of discretion is worth a pound of wit--ergonomics is a healthy choice.

Authors:  Rehana Rehman; Rakhshaan Khan; Ambreen Surti; Hira Khan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Using a Motion Sensor to Categorize Nonspecific Low Back Pain Patients: A Machine Learning Approach.

Authors:  Masoud Abdollahi; Sajad Ashouri; Mohsen Abedi; Nasibeh Azadeh-Fard; Mohamad Parnianpour; Kinda Khalaf; Ehsan Rashedi
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 3.576

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.