Literature DB >> 17497184

[Reduction in pain intensity after treatment for chronic back pain. When is it clinically meaningful?].

A Mesrian1, E Neubauer, M Schiltenwolf.   

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate how much change in pain intensity is necessary to discriminate between good, bad or no treatment outcome from the patient's point of view after therapy for chronic back pain.
METHODS: A total of 153 patients with chronic back pain were admitted to a 3 week multimodal treatment program including functional restoration and cognitive behavioral support (outpatient). Pain intensity was measured at the beginning of treatment and 6 months after discharge using a visual analogue scale (VAS). At this time, patients had to evaluate their back pain compared to the beginning of treatment as of better, equal or worse (global self-assessment).
RESULTS: Six months after therapy, 48% of the patients assessed their back pain as better, 28% reported no change and 14% stated that their pain was worse. Mean pain reduction among the patients who assessed themselves as better was 25 points, while those who stated that their pain was worse had an average of 9 points more (VAS).
CONCLUSION: Patients' global self-assessment is a valid parameter to determine the outcome after treatment of chronic back pain. A clinically meaningful pain reduction can be assumed if there is at least a 25/100 point reduction (VAS), while a worsening of pain is already found to be important when there is a rise of 9/100 points.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17497184     DOI: 10.1007/s00482-007-0543-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Schmerz        ISSN: 0932-433X            Impact factor:   1.107


  20 in total

1.  The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?

Authors:  R D Hays; J M Woolley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness.

Authors:  D E Beaton
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Looking for important change/differences in studies of responsiveness. OMERACT MCID Working Group. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. Minimal Clinically Important Difference.

Authors:  D E Beaton; C Bombardier; J N Katz; J G Wright; G Wells; M Boers; V Strand; B Shea
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.666

4.  HKF-R 10 - screening for predicting chronicity in acute low back pain (LBP): a prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  Eva Neubauer; Astrid Junge; Peter Pirron; Hanne Seemann; Marcus Schiltenwolf
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2005-10-03       Impact factor: 3.931

Review 5.  Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures.

Authors:  C Bombardier; J Hayden; D E Beaton
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.666

6.  The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods.

Authors:  Mark P Jensen; Paul Karoly; Sanford Braver
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 7.  The significance of treatment effects: the clinical perspective.

Authors:  R A Deyo; D L Patrick
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  [What questions are appropriate for predicting the risk of chronic disease in patients suffering from acute low back pain?].

Authors:  E Neubauer; P Pirron; A Junge; H Seemann; M Schiltenwolf
Journal:  Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb       Date:  2005 May-Jun

9.  Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures.

Authors:  J T Farrar; R K Portenoy; J A Berlin; J L Kinman; B L Strom
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2000-12-01       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 10.  Outcome research in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Michael K Schaufele; Scott D Boden
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.472

View more
  5 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.  [Back pain. Many questions and still too few answers].

Authors:  M Zenz
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.107

3.  [Success of treatment in higher stages of pain chronification as well? An evaluation of the Mainz pain staging system based on the QUAST-analysis sample].

Authors:  M Hüppe; C Maier; H Gockel; M Zenz; J Frettlöh
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.107

4.  [Pain staging, gender, and rehabilitation outcome in chronic low back pain. A pilot study].

Authors:  P Hampel; A Brunnberg; B Krohn-Grimberghe; F Mantel; M Thomsen; A Hoischen; M Hrkac; L Tlach; M Morfeld; B Mohr
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Transdermal fentanyl improves pain control and functionality in patients with osteoarthritis: an open-label Canadian trial.

Authors:  Denis Choquette; Timothy G McCarthy; Jude F N Rodrigues; Allan J Kelly; Fernando Camacho; G L A Horbay; Farah A Husein-Bhabha
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2007-11-23       Impact factor: 2.980

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.