Literature DB >> 17334294

Responsiveness of pain and disability measures for chronic whiplash.

Mark Stewart1, Christopher G Maher, Kathryn M Refshauge, Nikolai Bogduk, Michael Nicholas.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the responsiveness of common pain and disability measures in a cohort of patients with chronic whiplash. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pain and disability are routinely measured in clinical practice and clinical research. However, to date, a head-to-head comparison of competing measures for whiplash patients has not been performed.
METHODS: Pain (pain intensity, bothersomeness, and SF-36 bodily pain score) and disability (Patient Specific Functional Scale, Neck Disability Index, Functional Rating Index, Copenhagen Scale, and SF-36 physical summary) measures were completed by 132 patients with chronic whiplash at baseline and then again after 6 weeks together with an 11-point global perceived effect scale. Internal responsiveness was evaluated by calculating effect sizes and standardized response means, and external responsiveness by correlating change scores with global perceived effect scores and by ROC curves.
RESULTS: The ranking of responsiveness was consistent across the different analyses. Pain bothersomeness was more responsive than pain intensity, which was more responsive than the SF-36 pain measure. The Patient Specific Functional Scale was the most responsive disability measure, followed by the spine-specific measures, with the SF-36 physical summary measure the least responsive.
CONCLUSION: Pain bothersomeness and the Patient Specific Functional Scale provide the most responsive measures of pain and disability, respectively, in patients with chronic whiplash.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17334294     DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000256380.71056.6d

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


  22 in total

1.  The association between neck pain, the Neck Disability Index and cervical ranges of motion: a narrative review.

Authors:  Emily R Howell
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2011-09

2.  Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Multiple Linear Regression of the Neck Disability Index: Assessment If Subscales Are Equally Relevant in Whiplash and Nonspecific Neck Pain.

Authors:  Arthur C Croft; Bryce Milam; Jade Meylor; Richard Manning
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-05-25

3.  The lack of association between changes in functional outcomes and work retention in a chronic disabling occupational spinal disorder population: implications for the minimum clinical important difference.

Authors:  Hilary D Wilson; Tom G Mayer; Robert J Gatchel
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  A study of the test-retest reliability of the self-perceived general recovery and self-perceived change in neck pain questions in patients with recent whiplash-associated disorders.

Authors:  Trung Ngo; Maja Stupar; Pierre Côté; Eleanor Boyle; Heather Shearer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Responsiveness of the activities of daily living scale of the knee outcome survey and numeric pain rating scale in patients with patellofemoral pain.

Authors:  Sara R Piva; Alexandra B Gil; Charity G Moore; G Kelley Fitzgerald
Journal:  J Rehabil Med       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Classifying Whiplash Recovery Status Using the Neck Disability Index: Optimized Cutoff Points Derived From Receiver Operating Characteristic.

Authors:  Arthur C Croft; Julie A Workman; Michael P Szatalowicz; Philip E Roberts; Leonard R Suiter
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-05-26

7.  Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design.

Authors:  Steven J Kamper; Christopher G Maher; Grant Mackay
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2009

8.  Focused Evidence Review: Psychometric Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Goldsmith; Brent C Taylor; Nancy Greer; Maureen Murdoch; Roderick MacDonald; Lauren McKenzie; Christina E Rosebush; Timothy J Wilt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Which outcome measure is the best? Evaluating responsiveness of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale following hand and wrist surgery.

Authors:  Catherine R McMillan; Paul A Binhammer
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2009-03-04

10.  A randomised clinical trial of a comprehensive exercise program for chronic whiplash: trial protocol.

Authors:  Zoe A Michaleff; Chris G Maher; Gwendolen Jull; Jane Latimer; Luke B Connelly; Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Trudy Rebbeck; Michele Sterling
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.