Literature DB >> 8826492

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

A J H M Beurskens1, H C W de Vet, A J A Köke.   

Abstract

This study compares the responsiveness of three instruments of functional status: two disease-specific questionnaires (Oswestry and Roland Disability Questionnaires), and a patient-specific method (severity of the main complaint). We compared changes over time of functional status instruments with pain rated on a visual analog scale. Two strategies for evaluating the responsiveness in terms of sensitivity to change and specificity to change were used: effect size statistics and receiver-operating characteristic method. We chose global perceived effect as external criterion. A cohort of 81 patients with non-specific low back pain for at least 6 weeks assessed these measures before and after 5 weeks of treatment. According to the external criterion 38 patients improved. The results of both strategies were the same. All instruments were able to discriminate between improvement and non-improvement. The effect size statistics of the instruments were higher in the improved group than in the non-improved group. For each instrument the receiver-operating characteristic curves showed some discriminative ability. The curves for the Roland Questionnaire and pain were closer to the upper left than the curves for the other instruments. The sensitivity to change of the rating of Oswestry Questionnaire was lower than that of the other instruments. The main complaint was not very specific to change. The two strategies for evaluating the responsiveness were very useful and appeared to complement each other.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8826492     DOI: 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00149-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  124 in total

Review 1.  Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: validation.

Authors:  U Müller; M S Duetz; C Roeder; C G Greenough
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2004-03-17       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Chao Ma; Shaoling Wu; Lingjun Xiao; Yunlian Xue
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Early predictors of occupational back reinjury: results from a prospective study of workers in Washington State.

Authors:  Benjamin J Keeney; Judith A Turner; Deborah Fulton-Kehoe; Thomas M Wickizer; Kwun Chuen Gary Chan; Gary M Franklin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  The content and construct validity of the modified patient specific functional scale (PSFS 2.0) in individuals with neck pain.

Authors:  Marloes Thoomes-de Graaf; César Fernández-De-Las-Peñas; Joshua A Cleland
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2019-05-26

5.  The effects of a graded activity intervention for low back pain in occupational health on sick leave, functional status and pain: 12-month results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Hynek Hlobil; J Bart Staal; Jos Twisk; Albere Köke; Geertje Ariëns; Tjabe Smid; Willem van Mechelen
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-12

6.  Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery.

Authors:  Tore K Solberg; Jan-Abel Olsen; Tor Ingebrigtsen; Dag Hofoss; Oystein P Nygaard
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-04-21       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go?

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Achim Elfering; Ralph Staerkle; Astrid Junge; Dieter Grob; Norbert K Semmer; Nicola Jacobshagen; Jiri Dvorak; Norbert Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-06-04       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Discriminative validity and responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index among Japanese outpatients with lumbar conditions.

Authors:  Hideki Hashimoto; Masahi Komagata; Osamu Nakai; Masutaro Morishita; Yasuaki Tokuhashi; Shigeo Sano; Yutaka Nohara; Yukikazu Okajima
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-02-14       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.

Authors:  A F Mannion; F Porchet; F S Kleinstück; F Lattig; D Jeszenszky; V Bartanusz; J Dvorak; D Grob
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Clinically significant weight gain 1 year after occupational back injury.

Authors:  Benjamin J Keeney; Deborah Fulton-Kehoe; Thomas M Wickizer; Judith A Turner; Kwun Chuen Gary Chan; Gary M Franklin
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.162

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.