Literature DB >> 16508555

Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain.

Nicole van der Roer1, Raymond W J G Ostelo, Geertruida E Bekkering, Maurits W van Tulder, Henrica C W de Vet.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Cohort study.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the Minimal Clinically Important Change (MCIC) of the pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), and the Euroqol (EQ) in patients with low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MCIC can provide valuable information for researchers, healthcare providers, and policymakers.
METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial with 442 patients with low back pain were used. The MCIC was estimated over a 12-week period, and three different methods were used: 1) mean change scores, 2) minimal detectable change, and 3) optimal cutoff point in receiver operant curves. The global perceived effect scale (GPE) was used as an external criterion. The effect of initial scores on the MCIC was also assessed.
RESULTS: The MCIC of the PI-NRS ranged from 3.5 to 4.7 points in (sub)acute patients and 2.5 to 4.5 points in chronic patients with low back pain. The MCIC of the QBPDS was estimated between 17.5 to 32.9 points and 8.5 to 24.6 points for (sub)acute and chronic patients with low back pain. The MCIC for the EQ ranged from 0.07 to 0.58 in (sub)acute patients and 0.09 to 0.28 in patients with chronic low back pain.
CONCLUSION: Reporting the percentage of patients who have made a MCIC adds to the interpretability of study results. We present a range of MCIC values and advocate the choice of a single MCIC value according to the specific context.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16508555     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000201293.57439.47

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


  81 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.  How do idiopathic scoliosis patients who improve after surgery differ from those who do not exceed a minimum detectable change?

Authors:  Joan Bago; Francisco Javier Sanchez Perez-Grueso; Ferran Pellise; Esther Les
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  How is recovery from low back pain measured? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Steven J Kamper; Tasha R Stanton; Christopher M Williams; Christopher G Maher; Julia M Hush
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  ISSLS prize in clinical science 2020: the reliability and interpretability of score change in lumbar spine research.

Authors:  C Parai; O Hägg; B Lind; H Brisby
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-11-23       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  How much does the Dallas Pain Questionnaire score have to improve to indicate that patients with chronic low back pain feel better or well?

Authors:  M Marty; D Courvoisier; V Foltz; G Mahieu; C Demoulin; A Gierasimowicz; M Norberg; P de Goumoëns; C Cedraschi; S Rozenberg; S Genevay
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Level of Evidence for Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of Physical Capacity Tasks Designed to Assess Functioning in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Standards.

Authors:  Max Jakobsson; Annelie Gutke; Lidwine B Mokkink; Rob Smeets; Mari Lundberg
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2019-04-01

7.  Dependence of the minimal clinically important improvement on the baseline value is a consequence of floor and ceiling effects and not different expectations by patients.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Lori C Guthrie; Maria Alba
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-02-17       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  A randomized placebo-controlled trial of single-dose IM corticosteroid for radicular low back pain.

Authors:  Benjamin W Friedman; David Esses; Clemencia Solorzano; Hong K Choi; Michael Cole; Michelle Davitt; Polly E Bijur; E J Gallagher
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach.

Authors:  Henrica C W de Vet; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Caroline B Terwee; Nicole van der Roer; Dirk L Knol; Heleen Beckerman; Maarten Boers; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-10-11       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the UK Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (BEAM) trial.

Authors:  Robert Froud; Sandra Eldridge; Ranjit Lall; Martin Underwood
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.