Literature DB >> 9806624

Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2.

D L Riddle1, P W Stratford, J M Binkley.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: One purpose of this study was to determine whether the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire (RMQ) could be used to detect clinically meaningful change in individual patients. The construct that served as the basis for this study was that RMQ change scores should be greater for patients meeting their treatment goals than for patients who did not meet their goals. The second purpose of the study was to determine whether sensitivity to change (STC) varies depending on the magnitude of the initial RMQ score. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Of the 143 patients with low back pain who completed the study, 104 patients achieved their goals and 39 patients did not achieve their goals. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and likelihood ratios were used to determine the RMQ change scores that best classify patients as having met or not met their goals.
RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve for the entire RMQ scale was 0.68, while the curve areas for smaller RMQ intervals varied from 0.80 to 0.97. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: The STC for the entire RMQ scale was poor for the construct examined in this study. The likelihood ratios for smaller RMQ intervals support the construct validity of the RMQ for assessing change in disability. Initial RMQ score magnitudes must be taken into account to improve the rate of making correct predictions about whether meaningful change in disability will occur following treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9806624     DOI: 10.1093/ptj/78.11.1197

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Ther        ISSN: 0031-9023


  34 in total

Review 1.  Assessment of functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system in the context of work, daily living, and sport: a systematic review.

Authors:  Haije Wind; Vincent Gouttebarge; P Paul F M Kuijer; Monique H W Frings-Dresen
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2005-06

2.  Danish version of the Oswestry disability index for patients with low back pain. Part 2: Sensitivity, specificity and clinically significant improvement in two low back pain populations.

Authors:  Henrik Hein Lauridsen; Jan Hartvigsen; Claus Manniche; Lars Korsholm; Niels Grunnet-Nilsson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-05-31       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Clinically important change in quality of life in epilepsy.

Authors:  S Wiebe; S Matijevic; M Eliasziw; P A Derry
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 10.154

4.  Dependence of the minimal clinically important improvement on the baseline value is a consequence of floor and ceiling effects and not different expectations by patients.

Authors:  Michael M Ward; Lori C Guthrie; Maria Alba
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-02-17       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders.

Authors:  Florence Tubach; Philippe Ravaud; Dorcas Beaton; Maarten Boers; Claire Bombardier; David T Felson; Desireé van der Heijde; George Wells; Maxime Dougados
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.666

6.  Comparative responsiveness and minimal change for the Oxford Elbow Score following surgery.

Authors:  Jill Dawson; Helen Doll; Irene Boller; Ray Fitzpatrick; Christopher Little; Jonathan Rees; Andrew Carr
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-10-29       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach.

Authors:  Henrica C W de Vet; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Caroline B Terwee; Nicole van der Roer; Dirk L Knol; Heleen Beckerman; Maarten Boers; Lex M Bouter
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-10-11       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  A Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire Target Value to Distinguish between Functional and Dysfunctional States in People with Low Back Pain.

Authors:  Paul W Stratford; Daniel L Riddle
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 1.037

9.  Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the UK Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (BEAM) trial.

Authors:  Robert Froud; Sandra Eldridge; Ranjit Lall; Martin Underwood
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Does physical activity change predict functional recovery in low back pain? Protocol for a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Paul Hendrick; Stephan Milosavljevic; Melanie L Bell; Leigh Hale; Deirdre A Hurley; Suzanne M McDonough; Markus Melloh; David G Baxter
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-11-06       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.