Literature DB >> 29052814

Responsiveness and minimal important change of the NeckPix© in subjects with chronic neck pain undergoing rehabilitation.

Marco Monticone1,2, Luca Frigau3, Howard Vernon4, Barbara Rocca5, Francesco Mola3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The NeckPix© is a simple and rapid means of measuring the beliefs of subjects with chronic neck pain concerning pain-related fears of a specific set of activities of daily living. The original version showed satisfactory psychometric properties. This observational study is aimed at evaluating its responsiveness and minimal important changes (MICs) in subjects with chronic neck pain.
METHODS: At the beginning, at the end of an 8-week rehabilitation programme as well as at the one-year follow-up, 153 subjects completed the NeckPix©. After the programme and at follow-up, subjects and physiotherapists also completed the global perceived effect (GPE) scale, which was divided to produce a dichotomous outcome. Responsiveness was calculated by distribution [effect size (ES); standardised response mean (SRM)] and anchor-based methods [receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves; correlations between change scores of the NeckPix© and GPEs]. ROC curves were also used to compute MICs.
RESULTS: The ES ranged from 0.95 to 1.26 and the SRM from 0.84 to 0.98 at post-treatment and follow-up based on subjects' and physiotherapists' perspective. The ROC analyses revealed AUCs of 0.89 and 0.97 at post-treatment and follow-up, respectively; MICs (sensitivity; specificity) were of 6 (0.82; 0.88) and 8 (0.80; 0.92) at post-treatment and of 8 (0.95; 0.90 based on subjects and 0.95; 0.92 based on physiotherapists perspective) at follow-up. The correlations between change scores of the NeckPix© and GPEs ranged from -0.69 to -0.82.
CONCLUSIONS: The NeckPix© was sensitive in detecting clinical changes in subjects with chronic neck pain undergoing rehabilitation. We recommend taking the MICs provided into account when assessing subjects' improvement or planning studies in this clinical context.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic neck pain; Kinesiophobia; Minimal important changes; NeckPix©; Responsiveness

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29052814     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5343-9

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


  22 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.  Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.

Authors:  Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-08-24       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Fear of movement/(re)injury in chronic low back pain and its relation to behavioral performance.

Authors:  Johan W S Vlaeyen; Ank M J Kole-Snijders; Ruben G B Boeren; H van Eek
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 6.961

5.  Psychometric properties of the neck disability index amongst patients with chronic neck pain using item response theory.

Authors:  Mikhail Saltychev; Ryan Mattie; Zachary McCormick; Katri Laimi
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2017-05-13       Impact factor: 3.033

Review 6.  Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine.

Authors:  M H Zweig; G Campbell
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 8.327

7.  Chronic neck pain and treatment of cognitive and behavioural factors: results of a randomised controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Marco Monticone; Paola Baiardi; Carla Vanti; Silvano Ferrari; Tiziana Nava; Catia Montironi; Barbara Rocca; Calogero Foti; Marco Teli
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-04-01       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  A 3-year follow-up of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for back and neck pain.

Authors:  Irene B Jensen; Gunnar Bergström; Therese Ljungquist; Lennart Bodin
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2005-04-19       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content.

Authors:  Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Dirk L Knol; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Lex M Bouter; Henrica Cw de Vet
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a "Core Outcome Set" - a practical guideline.

Authors:  Cecilia A C Prinsen; Sunita Vohra; Michael R Rose; Maarten Boers; Peter Tugwell; Mike Clarke; Paula R Williamson; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  1 in total

1.  Psychometric properties of the global rating of change scales in patients with neck disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.

Authors:  Pavlos Bobos; Joy MacDermid; Goris Nazari; Rochelle Furtado
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 2.692

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.