Literature DB >> 20552378

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

Steven J Kamper1, Tasha R Stanton, Christopher M Williams, Christopher G Maher, Julia M Hush.   

Abstract

Recovery is commonly used as an outcome measure in low back pain (LBP) research. There is, however, no accepted definition of what recovery involves or guidance as to how it should be measured. The objective of the study was designed to appraise the LBP literature from the last 10 years to review the methods used to measure recovery. The research design includes electronic searches of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane database of clinical trials and PEDro from the beginning of 1999 to December 2008. All prospective studies of subjects with non-specific LBP that measured recovery as an outcome were included. The way in which recovery was measured was extracted and categorised according to the domain used to assess recovery. Eighty-two included studies used 66 different measures of recovery. Fifty-nine of the measures did not appear in more than one study. Seventeen measures used pain as a proxy for recovery, seven used disability or function and seventeen were based on a combination of two or more constructs. There were nine single-item recovery rating scales. Eleven studies used a global change scale that included an anchor of 'completely recovered'. Three measures used return to work as the recovery criterion, two used time to insurance claim closure and six used physical performance. In conclusion, almost every study that measured recovery from LBP in the last 10 years did so differently. This lack of consistency makes interpretation and comparison of the LBP literature problematic. It is likely that the failure to use a standardised measure of recovery is due to the absence of an established definition, and highlights the need for such a definition in back pain research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20552378      PMCID: PMC3036032          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1477-8

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


  99 in total

1.  Safety, efficacy, and cost effectiveness of evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care.

Authors:  B McGuirk; W King; J Govind; J Lowry; N Bogduk
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The effectiveness of relaxation acupoint stimulation and acupressure with aromatic lavender essential oil for non-specific low back pain in Hong Kong: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Y B Yip; S H M Tse
Journal:  Complement Ther Med       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.446

Review 3.  Systematic review of definitions for drowning incidents.

Authors:  Linda Papa; Robyn Hoelle; Ahamed Idris
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.262

4.  "Are you better?" A qualitative study of the meaning of recovery.

Authors:  D E Beaton; V Tarasuk; J N Katz; J G Wright; C Bombardier
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2001-06

5.  A prospective follow-up study of low back pain in the community.

Authors:  R Waxman; A Tennant; P Helliwell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Large-array surface electromyography in low back pain: a pilot study.

Authors:  Mark T Finneran; Daniel Mazanec; Marian E Marsolais; Ernest B Marsolais; William S Pease
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Isolated lumbar extensor strengthening versus regular physical therapy in an army working population with nonacute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Pieter H Helmhout; Chris C Harts; Wolfgang Viechtbauer; J Bart Staal; Rob A de Bie
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.966

8.  Prevalence, incidence, and recurrence of low back pain in scaffolders during a 3-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Leo A M Elders; Alex Burdorf
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Seeking care for low back pain in the general population: a two-year follow-up study: results from the MUSIC-Norrtälje Study.

Authors:  Eva Vingård; Monica Mortimer; Christina Wiktorin; Gunilla Pernold R P T; Kerstin Fredriksson; Gunnar Németh; Lars Alfredsson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Prognosis in patients with recent onset low back pain in Australian primary care: inception cohort study.

Authors:  Nicholas Henschke; Christopher G Maher; Kathryn M Refshauge; Robert D Herbert; Robert G Cumming; Jane Bleasel; John York; Anurina Das; James H McAuley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-07-07
View more
  20 in total

1.  Interobserver agreement in fusion status assessment after instrumental desis of the lower lumbar spine using 64-slice multidetector computed tomography: impact of observer experience.

Authors:  Borislav Laoutliev; Inger Havsteen; Birthe Højlund Bech; Eva Narvestad; Hanne Christensen; Anders Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-02-19       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Defining recovery in chronic fatigue syndrome: a critical review.

Authors:  Jenna L Adamowicz; Indre Caikauskaite; Fred Friedberg
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-05-03       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Identifying Treatment Effect Modifiers in the STarT Back Trial: A Secondary Analysis.

Authors:  Jason M Beneciuk; Jonathan C Hill; Paul Campbell; Ebenezer Afolabi; Steven Z George; Kate M Dunn; Nadine E Foster
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 5.820

4.  Tutorial for writing systematic reviews for the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy (BJPT).

Authors:  Marisa C Mancini; Jefferson R Cardoso; Rosana F Sampaio; Lucíola C M Costa; Cristina M N Cabral; Leonardo O P Costa
Journal:  Braz J Phys Ther       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Classification of patients with incident non-specific low back pain: implications for research.

Authors:  Giulia Norton; Christine M McDonough; Howard J Cabral; Michael Shwartz; James F Burgess
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  Spine kinematics predict symptom and lost time recurrence: how much recovery is enough?

Authors:  Sue A Ferguson; William S Marras
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2013-09

7.  Developing clinical prediction models for nonrecovery in older patients seeking care for back pain: the back complaints in the elders prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Wendelien H van der Gaag; Alessandro Chiarotto; Martijn W Heymans; Wendy T M Enthoven; Jantine van Rijckevorsel-Scheele; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra; Arthur M Bohnen; Bart W Koes
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 6.961

8.  Prognostic factors for non-success in patients with sciatica and disc herniation.

Authors:  Anne Julsrud Haugen; Jens Ivar Brox; Lars Grøvle; Anne Keller; Bård Natvig; Dag Soldal; Margreth Grotle
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-09-22       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Estimates of success in patients with sciatica due to lumbar disc herniation depend upon outcome measure.

Authors:  Anne Julsrud Haugen; Lars Grøvle; Jens Ivar Brox; Bård Natvig; Anne Keller; Dag Soldal; Margreth Grotle
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-04-24       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  The influence of self-reported leisure time physical activity and the body mass index on recovery from persistent back pain among men and women: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Tony Bohman; Lars Alfredsson; Johan Hallqvist; Eva Vingård; Eva Skillgate
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.