OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate if relying on postal questionnaires returned by patients provides an accurate representation of reported outcomes from patients receiving imaging-guided lumbar nerve root injections (NRIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received imaging-guided transforaminal lumbar NRIs were given short questionnaires inquiring about pain level [numerical rating scale (NRS)] and overall improvement [Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC)]. Those who did not return the questionnaires (non-responders) were telephoned and asked about pain level and overall change in condition. Age and gender matching of responders and non-responders resulted in 97 patients in each group. The proportion of patients reporting clinically relevant "improvement" or "worsening" in each group was calculated and the Chi-square test was used to detect differences. NRS and PGIC scores for responders and non-responders were compared using Student's t test and the Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. RESULTS: A higher proportion of non-responders reported clinically relevant improvement (53.6 %) compared to responders (42.6 %) and responders reported significantly higher levels of worsening of condition (p = 0.01). Both responders and non-responders had significant (p ≤ 0.05) improvement on the 20-30-min and 1-month NRS scores compared to their pre-injection baseline scores. Non-responders had significantly higher baseline NRS scores but no significant difference at the 20-30-min and 1-month NRS scores compared to responders. CONCLUSIONS: Patients returning postal questionnaires reported less favorable outcomes compared to those who did not return their questionnaires.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate if relying on postal questionnaires returned by patients provides an accurate representation of reported outcomes from patients receiving imaging-guided lumbar nerve root injections (NRIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients who received imaging-guided transforaminal lumbar NRIs were given short questionnaires inquiring about pain level [numerical rating scale (NRS)] and overall improvement [Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC)]. Those who did not return the questionnaires (non-responders) were telephoned and asked about pain level and overall change in condition. Age and gender matching of responders and non-responders resulted in 97 patients in each group. The proportion of patients reporting clinically relevant "improvement" or "worsening" in each group was calculated and the Chi-square test was used to detect differences. NRS and PGIC scores for responders and non-responders were compared using Student's t test and the Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. RESULTS: A higher proportion of non-responders reported clinically relevant improvement (53.6 %) compared to responders (42.6 %) and responders reported significantly higher levels of worsening of condition (p = 0.01). Both responders and non-responders had significant (p ≤ 0.05) improvement on the 20-30-min and 1-month NRS scores compared to their pre-injection baseline scores. Non-responders had significantly higher baseline NRS scores but no significant difference at the 20-30-min and 1-month NRS scores compared to responders. CONCLUSIONS:Patients returning postal questionnaires reported less favorable outcomes compared to those who did not return their questionnaires.
Authors: Salahadin Abdi; Sukdeb Datta; Andrea M Trescot; David M Schultz; Rajive Adlaka; Sairam L Atluri; Howard S Smith; Laxmaiah Manchikanti Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: W Teske; S Zirke; C Trippe; J Krämer; R E Willburger; C Schott; T Theodoridis; A-M Beer; A Molsberger Journal: Z Orthop Unfall Date: 2009-04-08 Impact factor: 0.923
Authors: Christoph A Agten; Andrea B Rosskopf; Patrick O Zingg; Cynthia K Peterson; Christian W A Pfirrmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Marco Lechmann; Andrea Rosskopf; Christine Ehrmann; Reto Sutter; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Cynthia K Peterson Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 2.199