STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) of 6 commonly-used performance tests (5-minute walking, 50-ft walking, sit-to-stand, 1 minute stair climbing, loaded forward reach, Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Performance tests are used to evaluate physical function in people with low back pain. Little is known about their clinimetric properties. METHODS: Performance tests were administered in people with chronic nonspecific low back pain (n = 198) before and after 10 weeks of treatment. At 10 weeks, the global perceived effect scale was used to determine if participants judged themselves as worsened, unchanged, or improved. The mean change scores for each performance test were calculated. A performance test was considered responsive if the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was equal to or greater than 0.70. We used 2 methods to evaluate MCIC: the optimal cut-off point based on the receiver operating characteristic curve, which takes into account both sensitivity and specificity, and the minimal detectable change for improvement, which considers test specificity only. RESULTS: In general, the mean change scores were the smallest in participants who judged themselves worsened and largest in those reporting to be improved. Sit-to-stand (AUC = 0.75) and stair climbing (AUC = 0.72) were the only performance tests that showed adequate responsiveness. For sit-to-stand, the MCIC ranged from 4.1 to 9.8 seconds (19%-45% of the mean baseline score). For stair climbing, the MCIC ranged from 14.5 to 23.9 steps (19%-31% of the mean baseline score). CONCLUSION: Only 2 of the 6 performance tests were responsive. Both had acceptable MCIC values. Developing individualized performance tests might partly overcome the general lack of responsiveness of performance tests. Future research should focus on the clinimetric testing of performance tests in subgroups.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) of 6 commonly-used performance tests (5-minute walking, 50-ft walking, sit-to-stand, 1 minute stair climbing, loaded forward reach, Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Performance tests are used to evaluate physical function in people with low back pain. Little is known about their clinimetric properties. METHODS: Performance tests were administered in people with chronic nonspecific low back pain (n = 198) before and after 10 weeks of treatment. At 10 weeks, the global perceived effect scale was used to determine if participants judged themselves as worsened, unchanged, or improved. The mean change scores for each performance test were calculated. A performance test was considered responsive if the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was equal to or greater than 0.70. We used 2 methods to evaluate MCIC: the optimal cut-off point based on the receiver operating characteristic curve, which takes into account both sensitivity and specificity, and the minimal detectable change for improvement, which considers test specificity only. RESULTS: In general, the mean change scores were the smallest in participants who judged themselves worsened and largest in those reporting to be improved. Sit-to-stand (AUC = 0.75) and stair climbing (AUC = 0.72) were the only performance tests that showed adequate responsiveness. For sit-to-stand, the MCIC ranged from 4.1 to 9.8 seconds (19%-45% of the mean baseline score). For stair climbing, the MCIC ranged from 14.5 to 23.9 steps (19%-31% of the mean baseline score). CONCLUSION: Only 2 of the 6 performance tests were responsive. Both had acceptable MCIC values. Developing individualized performance tests might partly overcome the general lack of responsiveness of performance tests. Future research should focus on the clinimetric testing of performance tests in subgroups.
Authors: Katie de Luca; Megan Yanz; Aron Downie; Julie Kendall; Søren T Skou; Jan Hartvigsen; Simon D French; Manuela L Ferreira; Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-07-02
Authors: Madelon Pijnenburg; S M Hadi Hosseini; Simon Brumagne; Lotte Janssens; Nina Goossens; Karen Caeyenberghs Journal: Brain Connect Date: 2016-09-22
Authors: Ann M Taylor; Kristine Phillips; Kushang V Patel; Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin; Dorcas Beaton; Daniel J Clauw; Monique A M Gignac; John D Markman; David A Williams; Shay Bujanover; Laurie B Burke; Daniel B Carr; Ernest H Choy; Philip G Conaghan; Penney Cowan; John T Farrar; Roy Freeman; Jennifer Gewandter; Ian Gilron; Veeraindar Goli; Tony D Gover; J David Haddox; Robert D Kerns; Ernest A Kopecky; David A Lee; Richard Malamut; Philip Mease; Bob A Rappaport; Lee S Simon; Jasvinder A Singh; Shannon M Smith; Vibeke Strand; Peter Tugwell; Gertrude F Vanhove; Christin Veasley; Gary A Walco; Ajay D Wasan; James Witter Journal: Pain Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Per Kjaer; Alice Kongsted; Inge Ris; Allan Abbott; Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen; Ewa M Roos; Søren T Skou; Tonny Elmose Andersen; Jan Hartvigsen Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Dalyah M Alamam; Andrew Leaver; Niamh Moloney; Hana I Alsobayel; Ghada Alashaikh; Martin G Mackey Journal: Pain Res Manag Date: 2019-02-03 Impact factor: 3.037
Authors: Rasool Bagheri; Ismail Ebrahimi Takamjani; Mehdi Dadgoo; Amir Ahmadi; Javad Sarrafzadeh; Mohammad Reza Pourahmadi; Amir-Salar Jafarpisheh Journal: Ann Rehabil Med Date: 2018-04-30