Literature DB >> 16119404

Responsiveness of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: consequences of using different external criteria.

W Kuijer1, S Brouwer, P U Dijkstra, W Jorritsma, J W Groothoff, J H B Geertzen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the consequences of using different external criteria on responsiveness of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) in patients with chronic low back pain.
DESIGN: Questionnaire measures before and after rehabilitation treatment.
SETTING: Rehabilitation centre.
SUBJECTS: Patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, referred for treatment. MAIN MEASURES: The RMDQ was used to assess self-reported functional status. The used external criteria were: (1) global perceived effect of change in complaints; (2) global perceived effect of change in ability to take care of oneself; (3) change in rating of pain intensity; (4) smallest real difference. Standardized response means, pooled effect sizes and receiver operating curves were calculated to determine responsiveness and to enable comparison of effect sizes with the thresholds of Cohen.
RESULTS: Standardized response means ranged from 1.33 to 3.45, pooled effect sizes ranged from 1.50 to 2.81, and areas under curves ranged from 0.76 to 1.00, dependent on the used external criterion.
CONCLUSIONS: All pooled effect sizes were well above 0.80, and all other statistics were high, indicating good responsiveness of the RMDQ. However, considerable differences were found in responsiveness, when using different external criteria in a same study population. Therefore, it can be concluded that the magnitude of the responsiveness statistic depends on the used external criteria.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16119404     DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr842oa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Rehabil        ISSN: 0269-2155            Impact factor:   3.477


  4 in total

1.  Safe lifting in patients with chronic low back pain: comparing FCE lifting task and Niosh lifting guideline.

Authors:  Wietske Kuijer; Pieter U Dijkstra; Sandra Brouwer; Michiel F Reneman; Johan W Groothoff; Jan H B Geertzen
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2006-12

2.  Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients.

Authors:  Henrik H Lauridsen; Jan Hartvigsen; Claus Manniche; Lars Korsholm; Niels Grunnet-Nilsson
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-10-25       Impact factor: 2.362

3.  The effect of shared decision-making on recovery from non-chronic aspecific low back pain in primary care; a post-hoc analysis from the patient, physician and observer perspectives.

Authors:  Ariëtte R J Sanders; Niek J de Wit; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Sandra van Dulmen
Journal:  BMC Prim Care       Date:  2022-02-02

4.  The impact of different intensities and domains of physical activity on analgesic use and activity limitation in people with low back pain: A prospective cohort study with a one-year followup.

Authors:  Thomas G Patterson; Paula R Beckenkamp; Manuela Ferreira; Adrian Bauman; Ana Paula Carvalho-E-Silva; Lucas Calais Ferreira; Paulo H Ferreira
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 3.651

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.