Literature DB >> 19544075

What is an acceptable outcome of treatment before it begins? Methodological considerations and implications for patients with chronic low back pain.

Henrik Hein Lauridsen1, Claus Manniche, Lars Korsholm, Niels Grunnet-Nilsson, Jan Hartvigsen.   

Abstract

Understanding changes in patient-reported outcomes is indispensable for interpretation of results from clinical studies. As a consequence the term "minimal clinically important difference" (MCID) was coined in the late 1980s to ease classification of patients into improved, not changed or deteriorated. Several methodological categories have been developed determining the MCID, however, all are subject to weaknesses or biases reducing the validity of the reported MCID. The objective of this study was to determine the reproducibility and validity of a novel method for estimating low back pain (LBP) patients' view of an acceptable change (MCID(pre)) before treatment begins. One-hundred and forty-seven patients with chronic LBP were recruited from an out-patient hospital back pain unit and followed over an 8-week period. Original and modified versions of the Oswestry disability index (ODI), Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ) and numeric pain rating scale (NRS(pain)) were filled in at baseline. The modified questionnaires determined what the patient considered an acceptable post-treatment outcome which allowed us to calculate the MCID(pre). Concurrent comparisons between the MCID(pre), instrument measurement error and a retrospective approach of establishing the minimal clinically important difference (MCID(post)) were made. The results showed the prospective acceptable outcome method scores to have acceptable reproducibility outside measurement error. MCID(pre) was 4.5 larger for the ODI and 1.5 times larger for BQ and NRS(pain) compared to the MCID(post). Furthermore, MCID(pre) and patients post-treatment acceptable change was almost equal for the NRS(pain) but not for the ODI and BQ. In conclusion, chronic LBP patients have a reasonably realistic idea of an acceptable change in pain, but probably an overly optimistic view of changes in functional and psychological/affective domains before treatment begins.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19544075      PMCID: PMC2899444          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1070-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  38 in total

1.  Cronbach's alpha.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-02-22

2.  Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach.

Authors:  G R Norman; P Stratford; G Regehr
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales.

Authors:  Amelia Williamson; Barbara Hoggart
Journal:  J Clin Nurs       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.036

4.  Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure.

Authors:  D Fischer; A L Stewart; D A Bloch; K Lorig; D Laurent; H Holman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999 Sep 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Translation and validation of the danish version of the Bournemouth questionnaire.

Authors:  Jan Hartvigsen; Henrik Lauridsen; Sandra Ekström; Mikael Busse Nielsen; Frederik Lange; Nikolai Kofoed; Niels Grunnet-Nilsson
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.437

6.  Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  John D Childs; Sara R Piva; Julie M Fritz
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Reliability of retrospective clinical data to evaluate the effectiveness of lumbar fusion in chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Ferran Pellisé; Xavier Vidal; Alejandro Hernández; Christine Cedraschi; Joan Bagó; Carlos Villanueva
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Revealing response shift in longitudinal research on fatigue--the use of the thentest approach.

Authors:  M A Sprangers; F S Van Dam; J Broersen; L Lodder; L Wever; M R Visser; P Oosterveld; E M Smets
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.089

9.  An application of structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change in quality of life data from cancer patients undergoing invasive surgery.

Authors:  Frans J Oort; Mechteld R M Visser; Mirjam A G Sprangers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Defining worthwhile and desired responses to treatment of chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Michael J Yelland; Philip J Schluter
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.750

View more
  4 in total

1.  Effect of BMI on the clinical outcome following microsurgical decompression in over-the-top technique: bi-centric study with an analysis of 744 patients.

Authors:  Tamara Herold; Ralph Kothe; Christoph J Siepe; Oliver Heese; Wolfgang Hitzl; Andreas Korge; Karin Wuertz-Kozak
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-02-27       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Different minimally important clinical difference (MCID) scores lead to different clinical prediction rules for the Oswestry disability index for the same sample of patients.

Authors:  Julie Schwind; Kenneth Learman; Bryan O'Halloran; Christopher Showalter; Chad Cook
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2013-05

3.  Defining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Heinrichs-carpenter quality of life scale (QLS).

Authors:  Bruno Falissard; Christophe Sapin; Jean-Yves Loze; Wally Landsberg; Karina Hansen
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 4.035

4.  The use of glucosamine for chronic low back pain: a systematic review of randomised control trials.

Authors:  Reena Sodha; Naveethan Sivanadarajah; Mahbub Alam
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.