Literature DB >> 20628767

The patient-specific functional scale is more responsive than the Roland Morris disability questionnaire when activity limitation is low.

Amanda M Hall1, Chris G Maher, Jane Latimer, Manuela L Ferreira, Leonardo O P Costa.   

Abstract

The primary objective of this study was to determine which questionnaire, the Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ) or the patient-specific functional scale (PSFS), was better at detecting change in activity limitation in a large cohort of patients with low back pain undergoing rehabilitation. A secondary aim was to determine if the responsiveness of the questionnaires was influenced by the patient's level of activity limitation at baseline. Responsiveness statistics, including effect size statistics, Pearson's r correlations and receiver operative characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used to determine ability to detect change in activity limitation on 831 patients with low back pain. Data were analysed at two time points; directly after treatment (termed short-term) and several weeks post-treatment (termed mid-term). The data were subsequently re-analysed on sub-sets of the full cohort according to the level of activity limitation from RMDQ baseline scores. In the total cohort we found that the PSFS was more responsive than the RMDQ; however, in the subgroup with high activity limitation this pattern was not observed. This is true for time points up to 6 months post-treatment. In conclusion, the RMDQ and PSFS both demonstrate good responsiveness according to the definitions given in previous guidelines. The PSFS is more responsive than the RMDQ for patients with low levels of activity limitation but not for patients with high levels of activity limitation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20628767      PMCID: PMC3036014          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1521-8

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


  24 in total

Review 1.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Christopher G Maher; Catherine Sherrington; Robert D Herbert; Anne M Moseley; Mark Elkins
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2003-08

3.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain.

Authors:  Liset H M Pengel; Kathryn M Refshauge; Chris G Maher
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments.

Authors:  A J H M Beurskens; H C W de Vet; A J A Köke
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 6.961

6.  Motor control exercise for chronic low back pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Authors:  Leonardo O P Costa; Christopher G Maher; Jane Latimer; Paul W Hodges; Robert D Herbert; Kathryn M Refshauge; James H McAuley; Matthew D Jennings
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2009-11-05

7.  Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: which one is the best?

Authors:  Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa; Chris G Maher; Jane Latimer; Paulo Henrique Ferreira; Manuela Loureiro Ferreira; Giovanni Campos Pozzi; Ludmilla Motta Andrade Freitas
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  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

9.  Factors defining care-seeking in low back pain--a meta-analysis of population based surveys.

Authors:  Manuela L Ferreira; Gustavo Machado; Jane Latimer; Christopher Maher; Paulo H Ferreira; Rob J Smeets
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 3.931

10.  Prognosis of chronic low back pain: design of an inception cohort study.

Authors:  Luciola da Cunha Menezes Costa; Nicholas Henschke; Christopher G Maher; Kathryn M Refshauge; Robert D Herbert; James H McAuley; Anurina Das; Leonardo O P Costa
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2007-02-08       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  15 in total

1.  Lumbar manipulation and exercise for the treatment of acute low back pain in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mitchell Selhorst; Brittany Selhorst
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2015-09

2.  Movement control exercise versus general exercise to reduce disability in patients with low back pain and movement control impairment. A randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jeannette Saner; Jan Kool; Rob A de Bie; Judith M Sieben; Hannu Luomajoki
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 2.362

3.  A Systematic Review of Head-to-Head Comparison Studies of the Roland-Morris and Oswestry Measures' Abilities to Assess Change.

Authors:  Anastasia N L Newman; Paul W Stratford; Lori Letts; Gregory Spadoni
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 1.037

4.  Psychometric Properties of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in Patients with Low Back Pathology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Goris Nazari; Pavlos Bobos; Steve Lu; Stephanie Reischl; Pedro H Almeida; Joy C MacDermid
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 1.037

5.  The effect of changing movement and posture using motion-sensor biofeedback, versus guidelines-based care, on the clinical outcomes of people with sub-acute or chronic low back pain-a multicentre, cluster-randomised, placebo-controlled, pilot trial.

Authors:  Peter Kent; Robert Laird; Terry Haines
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Effectiveness of the addition of therapeutic alliance with minimal intervention in the treatment of patients with chronic, nonspecific low back pain and low risk of involvement of psychosocial factors: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (TalkBack trial).

Authors:  Felipe Ribeiro Cabral Fagundes; Caique de Melo do Espírito Santo; Francine Mendonça de Luna Teixeira; Thaís Vanelli Tonini; Cristina Maria Nunes Cabral
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Effectiveness of three interventions for secondary prevention of low back pain in the occupational health setting - a randomised controlled trial with a natural course control.

Authors:  J Rantonen; J Karppinen; A Vehtari; S Luoto; E Viikari-Juntura; M Hupli; A Malmivaara; S Taimela
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  REHABILITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR SPONDYLOLYSIS IN THE YOUTH ATHLETE.

Authors:  Mitchell Selhorst; Michael Allen; Robyn McHugh; James MacDonald
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2020-04

9.  Back to living well: community-based management of low back pain: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Luciana G Macedo; Julie Richardson; Michele C Battie; Mark Hancock; Matthew Kwan; Genevieve Hladysh; Linda Zhuo
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2021-06-24

10.  Cost-effectiveness of providing patients with information on managing mild low-back symptoms in an occupational health setting.

Authors:  J Rantonen; J Karppinen; A Vehtari; S Luoto; E Viikari-Juntura; M Hupli; A Malmivaara; S Taimela
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.