Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients

Henrik H Lauridsen, Jan Hartvigsen, Claus Manniche, Lars Korsholm, Niels Grunnet-Nilsson, Henrik H Lauridsen, Jan Hartvigsen, Claus Manniche, Lars Korsholm, Niels Grunnet-Nilsson

Abstract

Background: The choice of an evaluative instrument has been hampered by the lack of head-to-head comparisons of responsiveness and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in subpopulations of low back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to concurrently compare responsiveness and MCID for commonly used pain scales and functional instruments in four subpopulations of LBP patients.

Methods: The Danish versions of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 23-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), the physical function and bodily pain subscales of the SF36, the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) and a numerical rating scale for pain (0-10) were completed by 191 patients from the primary and secondary sectors of the Danish health care system. Clinical change was estimated using a 7-point transition question and a numeric rating scale for importance. Responsiveness was operationalized using standardized response mean (SRM), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), and cut-point analysis. Subpopulation analyses were carried out on primary and secondary sector patients with LBP only or leg pain +/- LBP.

Results: RMQ was the most responsive instrument in primary and secondary sector patients with LBP only (SRM = 0.5-1.4; ROC = 0.75-0.94) whereas ODI and RMQ showed almost similar responsiveness in primary and secondary sector patients with leg pain (ODI: SRM = 0.4-0.9; ROC = 0.76-0.89; RMQ: SRM = 0.3-0.9; ROC = 0.72-0.88). In improved patients, the RMQ was more responsive in primary and secondary sector patients and LBP only patients (SRM = 1.3-1.7) while the RMQ and ODI were equally responsive in leg pain patients (SRM = 1.3 and 1.2 respectively). All pain measures demonstrated almost equal responsiveness. The MCID increased with increasing baseline score in primary sector and LBP only patients but was only marginally affected by patient entry point and pain location. The MCID of the percentage change score remained constant for the ODI (51%) and RMQ (38%) specifically and differed in the subpopulations.

Conclusion: RMQ is suitable for measuring change in LBP only patients and both ODI and RMQ are suitable for leg pain patients irrespectively of patient entry point. The MCID is baseline score dependent but only in certain subpopulations. Relative change measured using the ODI and RMQ was not affected by baseline score when patients quantified an important improvement.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Area under the ROC curve (with 95% confidence intervals) in primary and secondary sector patients according to pain location.
Figure 2
Figure 2
ODI and RMQ overall and quarter-specific MCIDs of the percentage change score for four LBP subpopulations.

References

    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. In: Health Measurment Scales A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Third. Streiner DL and Norman GR, editor. Oxford, Oxford Medical Publications; 2003.
    1. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Functional Status and Disability Questionnaires: What Do They Assess?: A Systematic Review of Back-Specific Outcome Questionnaires. Spine. 2005;30:130–140.
    1. Muller U, Roeder C, Dubs L, Duetz MS, Greenough CG. Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part II: Scale construction. Eur Spine J. 2004;13:314–324.
    1. Muller U, Duetz MS, Roeder C, Greenough CG. Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: Validation. Eur Spine J. 2004;13:301–313.
    1. Schaufele MK, Boden SD. Outcome research in patients with chronic low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003;34:231–237. doi: 10.1016/S0030-5898(03)00030-0.
    1. Guyatt GH, Kirshner B, Jaeschke R. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties? J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:1341–1345. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90194-R.
    1. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12:142S–158S. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(05)80019-4.
    1. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Michel BA, Stucki G. Minimal clinically important rehabilitation effects in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:131–138.
    1. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:171–178. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5.
    1. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:27–36. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(85)90005-0.
    1. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Katz JN, Wright JG. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1204–1217. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00407-3.
    1. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:349–362. doi: 10.1023/A:1023499322593.
    1. Norman GR, Sridhar FG, Guyatt GH, Walter SD. Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2001;39:1039–1047. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200110000-00002.
    1. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:459–468. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1.
    1. Lassere MN, van der Heijde D, Johnson KR. Foundations of the minimal clinically important difference for imaging. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:890–891.
    1. Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, Brooks P, Tugwell P. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:406–412.
    1. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1.
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.
    1. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371–383.
    1. Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:239–246. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00373-3.
    1. Beaton DE. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine. 2000;25:3192–3199. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00015.
    1. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:869–879. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00097-8.
    1. Scrimshaw SV, Maher C. Responsiveness of visual analogue and McGill pain scale measures. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001;24:501–504. doi: 10.1067/mmt.2001.118208.
    1. Bolton JE, Wilkinson RC. Responsiveness of pain scales: a comparison of three pain intensity measures in chiropractic patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1998;21:1–7.
    1. Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:79–93. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00296-X.
    1. Davidson M, Keating JL. A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther. 2002;82:8–24.
    1. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther. 2001;81:776–788.
    1. Bronfort G, Bouter LM. Responsiveness of general health status in chronic low back pain: a comparison of the COOP charts and the SF-36. Pain. 1999;83:201–209. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00103-7.
    1. Wittink H, Turk DC, Carr DB, Sukiennik A, Rogers W. Comparison of the redundancy, reliability, and responsiveness to change among SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index, and Multidimensional Pain Inventory. Clin J Pain. 2004;20:133–142.
    1. Chansirinukor W, Maher CG, Latimer J, Hush J. Comparison of the functional rating index and the 18-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: responsiveness and reliability. Spine. 2005;30:141–145.
    1. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Finch E, Gill C, Moreland J. Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. Phys Ther. 1996;76:359–365.
    1. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL, Guyatt GH. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1186–1196.
    1. Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. Phys Ther. 1998;78:1197–1207.
    1. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measurements used for patients with low back pain. Spine. 2004;29:E492–E501. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000143664.02702.0b.
    1. Leclaire R, Blier F, Fortin L, Proulx R. A cross-sectional study comparing the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Functional Disability scales in two populations of patients with low back pain of different levels of severity. Spine. 1997;22:68–71. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199701010-00011.
    1. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Oden A, Nordwall A. Simplifying outcome measurement: evaluation of instruments for measuring outcome after fusion surgery for chronic low back pain. Spine. 2002;27:1213–1222. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200206010-00014.
    1. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, Fogg AJ. Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine. 1999;24:1805–1812. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199909010-00010.
    1. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN. Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine. 2003;28:607–615. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200303150-00017.
    1. Turner JA, Fulton-Kehoe D, Franklin G, Wickizer TM, Wu R. Comparison of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and generic health status measures: a population-based study of workers' compensation back injury claimants. Spine. 2003;28:1061–1067. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200305150-00019.
    1. Garratt AM, Klaber MJ, Farrin AJ. Responsiveness of generic and specific measures of health outcome in low back pain. Spine. 2001;26:71–77. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200101010-00014.
    1. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain. 1996;65:71–76. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00149-2.
    1. Kuijer W, Brouwer S, Dijkstra PU, Jorritsma W, Groothoff JW, Geertzen JH. Responsiveness of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: consequences of using different external criteria. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:488–495. doi: 10.1191/0269215505cr842oa.
    1. Pengel LH, Refshauge KM, Maher CG. Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2004;29:879–883. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200404150-00011.
    1. Bolton JE, Breen AC. The Bournemouth Questionnaire: a short-form comprehensive outcome measure. I. Psychometric properties in back pain patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22:503–510. doi: 10.1016/S0161-4754(99)70001-1.
    1. Wiesinger GF, Nuhr M, Quittan M, Ebenbichler G, Wolfl G, Fialka-Moser V. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire for German-speaking patients with low back pain. Spine. 1999;24:1099–1103. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199906010-00009.
    1. Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL, Williams JI. The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties. Spine. 1995;20:341–352.
    1. Boscainos PJ, Sapkas G, Stilianessi E, Prouskas K, Papadakis SA. Greek versions of the Oswestry and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaires. Clin Orthop. 2003:40–53.
    1. Fujiwara A, Kobayashi N, Saiki K, Kitagawa T, Tamai K, Saotome K. Association of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score with the Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and short-form 36. Spine. 2003;28:1601–1607. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200307150-00023.
    1. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. J Rehabil Med. 2003;35:241–247. doi: 10.1080/16501970306094.
    1. Fritz JM, Piva SR. Physical impairment index: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with acute low back pain. Spine. 2003;28:1189–1194. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200306010-00020.
    1. Yakut E, Duger T, Oksuz C, Yorukan S, Ureten K, Turan D, Frat T, Kiraz S, Krd N, Kayhan H, Yakut Y, Guler C. Validation of the Turkish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Spine. 2004;29:581–585. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000113869.13209.03.
    1. Mannion AF, Junge A, Grob D, Dvorak J, Fairbank JC. Development of a German version of the Oswestry Disability Index. Part 2: sensitivity to change after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J. 2006;15:66–73. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0816-z.
    1. Hartvigsen J, Lauridsen H, Ekstrom S, Nielsen MB, Lange F, Kofoed N, Grunnet-Nilsson N. Translation and validation of the danish version of the Bournemouth questionnaire. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005;28:402–407. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.06.012.
    1. Kucukdeveci AA, Tennant A, Elhan AH, Niyazoglu H. Validation of the Turkish version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for use in low back pain. Spine. 2001;26:2738–2743. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200112150-00024.
    1. Exner V, Keel P. Measuring disability of patients with low-back pain - validation of a German version of the Roland & Morris disability questionnaire. Schmerz. 2000;14:392–400. doi: 10.1007/s004820070004.
    1. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N. Danish version of the Oswestry Disability Index for patients with low back pain. Part 1: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity in two different populations. Eur Spine J. 2006.
    1. Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N. 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. Eur Spine J. 2006.
    1. Lonnberg F. The management of back problems among the population. I. Contact patterns and therapeutic routines. Ugeskr Laeger. 1997;159:2207–2214 [In Danish].
    1. Fairbank J, Pynsent PB, Disney S. The Oswestry Disability Index. 2006.
    1. Roland M, Fairbank J. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. Spine. 2000;25:3115–3124. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006.
    1. Patrick DL, Deyo RA, Atlas SJ, Singer DE, Chapin A, Keller RB. Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica. Spine. 1995;20:1899–1908. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199509000-00011.
    1. Roland M, Morris R. A Study of the Natural-History of Back Pain .1. Development of A Reliable and Sensitive Measure of Disability in Low-Back-Pain. Spine. 1983;8:141–144. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004.
    1. Ostelo RW, de Vet HC, Knol DL, van den Brandt PA. 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was preferred out of six functional status questionnaires for post-lumbar disc surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:268–276. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.09.005.
    1. Manniche C, Asmussen K, Lauritsen B, Vinterberg H, Kreiner S, Jordan A. Low Back Pain Rating scale: validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain. Pain. 1994;57:317–326. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(94)90007-8.
    1. McHorney CA, Ware JEJ, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JF. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1992;30:MS253–MS265. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199205001-00025.
    1. Bjorner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T, Bech P, Rasmussen NK, Modvig J, Thunedborg K. In: Danish Manual to the SF36. Bjorner JB, editor. LIF, Lægemiddelindutriforeningen; 1997.
    1. Williamson A, Hoggart B. Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs. 2005;14:798–804. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01121.x.
    1. Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine. 2005;30:1331–1334. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29.
    1. Fischer D, Stewart AL, Bloch DA, Lorig K, Laurent D, Holman H. Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA. 1999;282:1157–1162. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.12.1157.
    1. Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, Taylor DW. Should study subjects see their previous responses. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:1003–1007. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(85)90098-0.
    1. Guyatt GH, Townsend M, Keller JL, Singer J. Should study subjects see their previous responses - data from a randomized control trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42:913–920. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(89)90105-4.
    1. Albert HB, Jensen AM, Dahl D, Rasmussen MN. Criteria validation of the Roland Morris questionnaire. A Danish translation of the international scale for the assessment of functional level in patients with low back pain and sciatica. Ugeskr Laeger. 2003;165:1875–1880 [In Danish].
    1. Bjorner JB, Thunedborg K, Kristensen TS, Modvig J, Bech P. The Danish SF-36 Health Survey: translation and preliminary validity studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:991–999. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00091-2.
    1. Bjorner JB, Kreiner S, Ware JE, Damsgaard MT, Bech P. Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1189–1202. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00111-5.
    1. Bjorner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T, Groenvold M. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the Danish SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1001–1011. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00092-4.
    1. McHorney CA, Ware JEJ, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247–263. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006.
    1. McHorney CA, Ware JEJ, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994;32:40–66. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004.
    1. Ware JEJ, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002.
    1. Bombardier C, Hayden J, Beaton DE. Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: outcome measures. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:431–438.
    1. Farrar JT, Young JPJ, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001;94:149–158. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9.
    1. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–S189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015.
    1. Bolton JE. Sensitivity and specificity of outcome measures in patients with neck pain: detecting clinically significant improvement. Spine. 2004;29:2410–2417. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000143080.74061.25.
    1. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. 1st ed. New York, Chapman and Hall; 1993.
    1. Phillips PCB, Park JY. On the formulation of wald tests of nonlinear restrictions. Econometrica. 1988;56:1065–1083. doi: 10.2307/1911359.
    1. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:897–906. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(86)90038-X.
    1. Hanley JA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging. 1989;29:307–335.
    1. de Vet HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ. Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:479–487. doi: 10.1017/S0266462301106148.
    1. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–845. doi: 10.2307/2531595.
    1. Farrar JT, Portenoy RK, Berlin JA, Kinman JL, Strom BL. Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain. 2000;88:287–294. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00339-0.
    1. Coste J, Delecoeuillerie G, Cohen L, Le Parc JM, Paolaggi JB. Clinical course and prognostic factors in acute low back pain: an inception cohort study in primary care practice. BMJ. 1994;308:577–580.
    1. Stratford PW, Binkley JM. Measurement properties of the RM-18. A modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Scale. Spine. 1997;22:2416–2421. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199710150-00018.
    1. Suarez-Almazor ME, Kendall C, Johnson JA, Skeith K, Vincent D. Use of health status measures in patients with low back pain in clinical settings. Comparison of specific, generic and preference-based instruments. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2000;39:783–790. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/39.7.783.
    1. Jette DU, Jette AM. Physical therapy and health outcomes in patients with spinal impairments. Phys Ther. 1996;76:930–941.
    1. Stratford PW, Binkley J, Solomon P, Gill C, Finch E. Assessing change over time in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther. 1994;74:528–533.
    1. Wells G, Anderson J, Beaton D, Bellamy N, Boers M, Bombardier C, Breedveld F, Carr A, Cranney A, Dougados M, Felson D, Kirwan J, Schiff M, Shea B, Simon L, Smolen J, Strand V, Tugwell P, van Riel P, Welch VA. Minimal clinically important difference module: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. J Rheumatol. 2001;28:452–454.
    1. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109–114. doi: 10.1097/00002281-200203000-00006.
    1. Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996;76:1109–1123.
    1. Stratford PW, Spadoni G, Kennedy D, Westaway MD, Alcock GK. Seven points to consider when investigating a measure's ability to detect change. Physiother Can. 2002;54:16–24.
    1. Stratford PW, Riddle DL. Assessing sensitivity to change: choosing the appropriate change coefficient. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:23. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-23.
    1. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:12–20.
    1. Davidson M, Keating JL, Eyres S. A low back-specific version of the SF-36 Physical Functioning scale. Spine. 2004;29:586–594. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000103346.38557.73.
    1. Ostelo RW, de Vet HC. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005;19:593–607. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003.
    1. Finch E, Brooks D, Stratford P, Mayo NE. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. 2nd. edition. BC Decker Inc.; 2002. pp. 180–181.
    1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gotzsche PC, Lang T. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–694.
    1. Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:900–908. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00435-3.
    1. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. Simplifying outcome measurement. Eur Spine J. 2005;14:S1–S30. doi: 10.1007/s00586-005-0997-0.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel