The smallest worthwhile effect of primary care physiotherapy did not differ across musculoskeletal pain sites
To determine and compare estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) for physiotherapy in neck, shoulder, and low-back pain patients and to investigate the influence of sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors on these estimates. A structured telephone interview was conducted befo...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2018-09, Vol.101, p.44-52 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 52 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 44 |
container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
container_volume | 101 |
creator | Christiansen, David H. de Vos Andersen, Nils-Bo Poulsen, Per H. Ostelo, Raymond W. |
description | To determine and compare estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) for physiotherapy in neck, shoulder, and low-back pain patients and to investigate the influence of sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors on these estimates.
A structured telephone interview was conducted before treatment was commenced in 160 patients referred for primary care physiotherapy. The benefit-harm trade-off method was used to estimate the SWE of physiotherapy for the following outcomes; pain, disability, and time to recovery, compared with the improvement achieved without any treatment (natural course). Regression analyses were used to assess the influence of sociodemographics, clinical variables, and intake scores on pain, disability, and psychological scales.
The median SWE for improvements on pain and disability was 20% (interquartile range 10%–30%), and the SWE for time to recovery was 10 days (interquartile range 7–14 days) over a period of 6 weeks. These estimates did not differ with respect to pain location (neck, shoulder, or back) and were generally unaffected by sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors.
People with neck, shoulder, and low-back pain need to see at least 20% of additional improvement on pain and disability compared with natural recovery to consider that the effect of physiotherapy is worthwhile, given its costs, potential side effects, and inconveniences. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.019 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2049549800</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435617313793</els_id><sourcerecordid>2089193153</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-832f36a9fe484a2dba918c0e33e976b39300fa0b2c7d9b70673205e1acf9fe113</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkT1v1TAUhiMEopfCX6gssbAkHNtxYm-gqkClSixlthznRHFw4mAnVPff43JvGVg6neV5z9dTFFcUKgq0-ThVk_VuwdVVDKisQFRA1YviQGUrS6EYfVkcQCpR1lw0F8WblCYA2kIrXhcXTEnBmKCHYr4fkaTZeI9pIw8hbuPD6DwSHAa0GwkDWaObTTwSayKSdTwmF7YRo1mPpHc9WcKWa6YjMTaGlMi8J7v7kH6ix814shq3kOQ2TG-LV4PxCd-d62Xx48vN_fW38u7719vrz3elret6KyVnA2-MGrCWtWF9ZxSVFpBzVG3TccUBBgMds22vuhaaljMQSI0dcoZSfll8OPVdY_i158v07JJF782CYU-aQa1ErSRARt__h05hj0veLlNSUcWp4JlqTtTfCyMO-vwVTUE_CtGTfhKiH4VoEDoLycGrc_u9m7H_F3sykIFPJwDzP347jDpZh4vF3sUsQPfBPTfjDxxKoU8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2089193153</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The smallest worthwhile effect of primary care physiotherapy did not differ across musculoskeletal pain sites</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Christiansen, David H. ; de Vos Andersen, Nils-Bo ; Poulsen, Per H. ; Ostelo, Raymond W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Christiansen, David H. ; de Vos Andersen, Nils-Bo ; Poulsen, Per H. ; Ostelo, Raymond W.</creatorcontrib><description>To determine and compare estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) for physiotherapy in neck, shoulder, and low-back pain patients and to investigate the influence of sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors on these estimates.
A structured telephone interview was conducted before treatment was commenced in 160 patients referred for primary care physiotherapy. The benefit-harm trade-off method was used to estimate the SWE of physiotherapy for the following outcomes; pain, disability, and time to recovery, compared with the improvement achieved without any treatment (natural course). Regression analyses were used to assess the influence of sociodemographics, clinical variables, and intake scores on pain, disability, and psychological scales.
The median SWE for improvements on pain and disability was 20% (interquartile range 10%–30%), and the SWE for time to recovery was 10 days (interquartile range 7–14 days) over a period of 6 weeks. These estimates did not differ with respect to pain location (neck, shoulder, or back) and were generally unaffected by sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors.
People with neck, shoulder, and low-back pain need to see at least 20% of additional improvement on pain and disability compared with natural recovery to consider that the effect of physiotherapy is worthwhile, given its costs, potential side effects, and inconveniences.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.019</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29852251</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Back pain ; Clinical trials ; Epidemiology ; Estimates ; Health care ; Health insurance ; Intervention ; Low back pain ; Manipulative therapy ; Methods ; Minimal important change ; Musculoskeletal disorders ; Neck ; Pain ; Patient-reported outcome measures ; Patients ; Physical therapy ; Physiotherapy ; Primary care ; Psychological factors ; Public health ; Recovery ; Regression analysis ; Shoulder ; Side effects ; Smallest worthwhile effect ; Sociodemographics</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018-09, Vol.101, p.44-52</ispartof><rights>2018 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Sep 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-832f36a9fe484a2dba918c0e33e976b39300fa0b2c7d9b70673205e1acf9fe113</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-832f36a9fe484a2dba918c0e33e976b39300fa0b2c7d9b70673205e1acf9fe113</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0196-2290</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2089193153?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994,64384,64386,64388,72240</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29852251$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Christiansen, David H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vos Andersen, Nils-Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poulsen, Per H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ostelo, Raymond W.</creatorcontrib><title>The smallest worthwhile effect of primary care physiotherapy did not differ across musculoskeletal pain sites</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>To determine and compare estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) for physiotherapy in neck, shoulder, and low-back pain patients and to investigate the influence of sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors on these estimates.
A structured telephone interview was conducted before treatment was commenced in 160 patients referred for primary care physiotherapy. The benefit-harm trade-off method was used to estimate the SWE of physiotherapy for the following outcomes; pain, disability, and time to recovery, compared with the improvement achieved without any treatment (natural course). Regression analyses were used to assess the influence of sociodemographics, clinical variables, and intake scores on pain, disability, and psychological scales.
The median SWE for improvements on pain and disability was 20% (interquartile range 10%–30%), and the SWE for time to recovery was 10 days (interquartile range 7–14 days) over a period of 6 weeks. These estimates did not differ with respect to pain location (neck, shoulder, or back) and were generally unaffected by sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors.
People with neck, shoulder, and low-back pain need to see at least 20% of additional improvement on pain and disability compared with natural recovery to consider that the effect of physiotherapy is worthwhile, given its costs, potential side effects, and inconveniences.</description><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health insurance</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Low back pain</subject><subject>Manipulative therapy</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Minimal important change</subject><subject>Musculoskeletal disorders</subject><subject>Neck</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patient-reported outcome measures</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physical therapy</subject><subject>Physiotherapy</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Psychological factors</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Recovery</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Shoulder</subject><subject>Side effects</subject><subject>Smallest worthwhile effect</subject><subject>Sociodemographics</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkT1v1TAUhiMEopfCX6gssbAkHNtxYm-gqkClSixlthznRHFw4mAnVPff43JvGVg6neV5z9dTFFcUKgq0-ThVk_VuwdVVDKisQFRA1YviQGUrS6EYfVkcQCpR1lw0F8WblCYA2kIrXhcXTEnBmKCHYr4fkaTZeI9pIw8hbuPD6DwSHAa0GwkDWaObTTwSayKSdTwmF7YRo1mPpHc9WcKWa6YjMTaGlMi8J7v7kH6ix814shq3kOQ2TG-LV4PxCd-d62Xx48vN_fW38u7719vrz3elret6KyVnA2-MGrCWtWF9ZxSVFpBzVG3TccUBBgMds22vuhaaljMQSI0dcoZSfll8OPVdY_i158v07JJF782CYU-aQa1ErSRARt__h05hj0veLlNSUcWp4JlqTtTfCyMO-vwVTUE_CtGTfhKiH4VoEDoLycGrc_u9m7H_F3sykIFPJwDzP347jDpZh4vF3sUsQPfBPTfjDxxKoU8</recordid><startdate>201809</startdate><enddate>201809</enddate><creator>Christiansen, David H.</creator><creator>de Vos Andersen, Nils-Bo</creator><creator>Poulsen, Per H.</creator><creator>Ostelo, Raymond W.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0196-2290</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201809</creationdate><title>The smallest worthwhile effect of primary care physiotherapy did not differ across musculoskeletal pain sites</title><author>Christiansen, David H. ; de Vos Andersen, Nils-Bo ; Poulsen, Per H. ; Ostelo, Raymond W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-832f36a9fe484a2dba918c0e33e976b39300fa0b2c7d9b70673205e1acf9fe113</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health insurance</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Low back pain</topic><topic>Manipulative therapy</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Minimal important change</topic><topic>Musculoskeletal disorders</topic><topic>Neck</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patient-reported outcome measures</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physical therapy</topic><topic>Physiotherapy</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Psychological factors</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Recovery</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Shoulder</topic><topic>Side effects</topic><topic>Smallest worthwhile effect</topic><topic>Sociodemographics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Christiansen, David H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vos Andersen, Nils-Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Poulsen, Per H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ostelo, Raymond W.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Christiansen, David H.</au><au>de Vos Andersen, Nils-Bo</au><au>Poulsen, Per H.</au><au>Ostelo, Raymond W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The smallest worthwhile effect of primary care physiotherapy did not differ across musculoskeletal pain sites</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2018-09</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>101</volume><spage>44</spage><epage>52</epage><pages>44-52</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>To determine and compare estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) for physiotherapy in neck, shoulder, and low-back pain patients and to investigate the influence of sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors on these estimates.
A structured telephone interview was conducted before treatment was commenced in 160 patients referred for primary care physiotherapy. The benefit-harm trade-off method was used to estimate the SWE of physiotherapy for the following outcomes; pain, disability, and time to recovery, compared with the improvement achieved without any treatment (natural course). Regression analyses were used to assess the influence of sociodemographics, clinical variables, and intake scores on pain, disability, and psychological scales.
The median SWE for improvements on pain and disability was 20% (interquartile range 10%–30%), and the SWE for time to recovery was 10 days (interquartile range 7–14 days) over a period of 6 weeks. These estimates did not differ with respect to pain location (neck, shoulder, or back) and were generally unaffected by sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors.
People with neck, shoulder, and low-back pain need to see at least 20% of additional improvement on pain and disability compared with natural recovery to consider that the effect of physiotherapy is worthwhile, given its costs, potential side effects, and inconveniences.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>29852251</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.019</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0196-2290</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018-09, Vol.101, p.44-52 |
issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2049549800 |
source | ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
subjects | Back pain Clinical trials Epidemiology Estimates Health care Health insurance Intervention Low back pain Manipulative therapy Methods Minimal important change Musculoskeletal disorders Neck Pain Patient-reported outcome measures Patients Physical therapy Physiotherapy Primary care Psychological factors Public health Recovery Regression analysis Shoulder Side effects Smallest worthwhile effect Sociodemographics |
title | The smallest worthwhile effect of primary care physiotherapy did not differ across musculoskeletal pain sites |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T11%3A13%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20smallest%20worthwhile%20effect%20of%20primary%20care%20physiotherapy%20did%20not%20differ%20across%20musculoskeletal%20pain%20sites&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Christiansen,%20David%20H.&rft.date=2018-09&rft.volume=101&rft.spage=44&rft.epage=52&rft.pages=44-52&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2089193153%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2089193153&rft_id=info:pmid/29852251&rft_els_id=S0895435617313793&rfr_iscdi=true |