Outcome measures in chronic low back pain.
The purpose of this prospective, single site cohort quasi-experimental study was to determine the responsiveness of the numerical rating scale (NRS), Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ) and the patient-specific functional scale (PSFS) in order to determine which would best measure clinically meaningful change in a chronic low back pain (LBP) population. Several patient-based outcome instruments are currently used to measure treatment effect in the chronic LBP population. However, there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes a "successful" outcome, how an important improvement/deterioration has been defined and which outcome measure(s) best captures the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions for the chronic LBP population. Sixty-three consecutive patients with chronic LBP referred to a back exercise and education class participated in this study; 48 of the 63 patients had complete data. Five questionnaires were administered initially and after the 5-week back class intervention. Also at 5 weeks, patients completed a global impression of change as a reflection of meaningful change in patient status. Score changes in the five different questionnaires were subjected to both distribution- and anchor-based methods: standard error of measurement (SEM) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to define clinical improvement. From these methods, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) defined as the smallest difference that patients and clinicians perceive to be worthwhile is presented for each instrument. Based on the SEM, a point score change of 2.4 in the NRS, 5 in the RMDQ, 17 in the ODI, 11 on the PSEQ, and 1.4 on the PSFS corresponded to the MCID. Based on ROC curve analysis, a point score change of 4 points for both the NRS and RMDQ, 8 points for the ODI, 9 points for the PSEQ and 2 points for the PSFS corresponded to the MCID. The ROC analysis demonstrated that both the PSEQ and PSFS are responsive to clinically important change over time. The NRS was found to be least responsive. The exact value of the MCID is not a fixed value and is dependent on the assessment method used to calculate the score change. Based on ROC curve analysis the PSFS and PSEQ were more responsive than the other scales in measuring change in patients with chronic LBP following participation in a back class programme. However, due to the small sample size, the lack of observed worsening of symptoms over time, the single centre and intervention studied these results which need to be interpreted with caution.
Maughan
Elaine F
EF
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, London, UK. Elaine.Maughan@nhs.net
Lewis
Jeremy S
JS
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D019540:Area Under Curve; D002908:Chronic Disease; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D017116:Low Back Pain / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D012372:ROC Curve; D020127:Recovery of Function; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D016896:Treatment Outcome
Pain. 2008 Jul 15;137(2):276-285
17937976
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jan 1;33(1):90-4
18165753
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Dec;86(12):2270-6
16344022
J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Sep;52(9):861-73
10529027
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Jan 1;29(1):87-93
14699282
Clin J Pain. 2002 Nov-Dec;18(6):355-65
12441829
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 May;27(5):331-8
9580892
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Apr 1;30(7):711-21
15803071
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Nov 15;25(22):2940-52; discussion 2952
11074683
N Z Med J. 2005 Aug 26;118(1221):U1629
16138167
Pain. 2001 Oct;94(1):85-100
11576748
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42
17161752
Pain. 1996 Apr;65(1):71-76
8826492
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Oct 1;30(19):2153-63
16205340
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3167-77
11124733
Pain Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;7(1):38-45
16533195
J Chronic Dis. 1986;39(11):897-906
2947907
Phys Ther. 1998 Nov;78(11):1186-96
9806623
Pain. 2005 Jan;113(1-2):9-19
15621359
J Biopharm Stat. 2004 Feb;14(1):97-110
15027502
Musculoskeletal Care. 2006 Dec;4(4):187-203
17117444
Phys Ther. 1997 Aug;77(8):820-9
9256870
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1033-9
16980142
Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15
2691207
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jun 1;30(11):1331-4
15928561
Phys Ther. 2002 Jan;82(1):8-24
11784274
J Pain. 2008 Feb;9(2):105-21
18055266
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Mar;8(2):141-4
6222486
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008 Jan 25;9:11
18221521
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jan 1;30(1):130-40
15626993
Phys Ther. 2001 Feb;81(2):776-88
11175676
Eur J Pain. 2007 Feb;11(2):153-63
16446108
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Feb;60(4):833-43
15571900
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999 Mar-Apr;22(3):144-8
10220712
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001 Fall;17(4):479-87
11758292
J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Aug;50(8):869-79
9291871
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Apr 15;29(8):879-83
15082988
Disabil Rehabil. 2004 Feb 4;26(3):162-5
14754627
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005 Aug;19(4):593-607
15949778
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Jan;27(1):26-35
14739871
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jan;59(1):45-52
16360560
Br Med Bull. 2006;77-78:55-69
16968689
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007 Aug;46(8):1297-302
17522096
J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 May;56(5):395-407
12812812
Pain. 2007 Sep;131(1-2):112-20
17276006
Pain. 2001 Nov;94(2):149-158
11690728
J Occup Rehabil. 2007 Dec;17(4):683-700
17957451
Man Ther. 2005 Nov;10(4):242-55
16154380
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3140-51
11124730
Eur J Pain. 2004 Aug;8(4):283-91
15207508
Eur Spine J. 2003 Feb;12(1):12-20
12592542
Qual Life Res. 2003 Jun;12(4):349-62
12797708
Pain. 1996 Jul;66(1):13-22
8857627