Clinically important outcomes in low back pain

Four important domains directly related to low back pain are: pain intensity, low-back-pain-specific disability, patient satisfaction with treatment outcome, and work disability. Within each of the domains, different questionnaires have been proposed. This chapter focuses on validated and widely use...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology 2005-08, Vol.19 (4), p.593-607
Hauptverfasser: Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G., de Vet, Henrica C.W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 607
container_issue 4
container_start_page 593
container_title Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology
container_volume 19
creator Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G.
de Vet, Henrica C.W.
description Four important domains directly related to low back pain are: pain intensity, low-back-pain-specific disability, patient satisfaction with treatment outcome, and work disability. Within each of the domains, different questionnaires have been proposed. This chapter focuses on validated and widely used questionnaires. Details of the background and the measurement properties, and of the minimally clinically important change (MCIC) using these questionnaires, are described. The MCIC can be estimated using various methods and there is no consensus in the literature on what the most appropriate technique is. This chapter focuses primarily on two adequate and frequently used methods for estimating the MCIC. We argue that the MCIC should not be considered as a fixed value and that the MCIC values presented in this chapter are used as indications. For patients with subacute or chronic low back pain, the MCIC for pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) should at least be 20 mm and for acute low back pain it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be at the level of approximately 35 mm. If a numerical rating scale (NRS) is used it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 and 2.5 for patients with acute and chronic low back pain, respectively. For functional disability as measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire it seems reasonable that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 points, whereas an MCIC of at least 10 points when the Oswestry Disability Index is used. For global perceived effect, we argue that the MCIC is most appropriately defined in terms of at least ‘much improved’ or ‘very satisfied’, instead of including ‘slightly improved’. Finally, we argue that, from the point of view of cost effectiveness, every day of earlier return to work is important. The exact value for the MCIC can be determined, taking into account the aim of the measurement, the initial scores, the target population and the method used to assess MCIC.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67920128</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1521694205000264</els_id><sourcerecordid>67920128</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-d197c9ddababae72c706f06202c94eb3fa56aa445f9158e83d56000276055573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMorq7-AQ_Sk7fWSdokDXiRxS9Y8LL3kKZTzNo2Nekq--9t2QVvMoeZw_O-MA8hNxQyClTcb7MKw0fGAHgGeQaQn5ALynOWUinhdL4ZTYUq2IJcxridgFyx4pwsKFeFkrK8INmqdb2zpm33iesGH0bTj4nfjdZ3GBPXJ63_SSpjP5PBuP6KnDWmjXh93EuyeX7arF7T9fvL2-pxndqi4GNaUyWtqmtTTYOSWQmiAcGAWVVglTeGC2MmtFGUl1jmNRcAwKQAzrnMl-TuUDsE_7XDOOrORYtta3r0u6iFVAwoKyeQHUAbfIwBGz0E15mw1xT0LElv9SxJz5I05Hp2sCS3x_Zd1WH9FzlamYCHA4DTi98Og47WYW-xdgHtqGvv_uv_BVyudu0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67920128</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinically important outcomes in low back pain</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G. ; de Vet, Henrica C.W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G. ; de Vet, Henrica C.W.</creatorcontrib><description>Four important domains directly related to low back pain are: pain intensity, low-back-pain-specific disability, patient satisfaction with treatment outcome, and work disability. Within each of the domains, different questionnaires have been proposed. This chapter focuses on validated and widely used questionnaires. Details of the background and the measurement properties, and of the minimally clinically important change (MCIC) using these questionnaires, are described. The MCIC can be estimated using various methods and there is no consensus in the literature on what the most appropriate technique is. This chapter focuses primarily on two adequate and frequently used methods for estimating the MCIC. We argue that the MCIC should not be considered as a fixed value and that the MCIC values presented in this chapter are used as indications. For patients with subacute or chronic low back pain, the MCIC for pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) should at least be 20 mm and for acute low back pain it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be at the level of approximately 35 mm. If a numerical rating scale (NRS) is used it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 and 2.5 for patients with acute and chronic low back pain, respectively. For functional disability as measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire it seems reasonable that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 points, whereas an MCIC of at least 10 points when the Oswestry Disability Index is used. For global perceived effect, we argue that the MCIC is most appropriately defined in terms of at least ‘much improved’ or ‘very satisfied’, instead of including ‘slightly improved’. Finally, we argue that, from the point of view of cost effectiveness, every day of earlier return to work is important. The exact value for the MCIC can be determined, taking into account the aim of the measurement, the initial scores, the target population and the method used to assess MCIC.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1521-6942</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-1770</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15949778</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Disability Evaluation ; Humans ; low back pain ; Low Back Pain - physiopathology ; Low Back Pain - rehabilitation ; minimally clinically important change ; Pain Measurement ; Patient Satisfaction ; questionnaires ; reproducibility ; Reproducibility of Results ; Severity of Illness Index ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Treatment Outcome ; validity</subject><ispartof>Best practice &amp; research. Clinical rheumatology, 2005-08, Vol.19 (4), p.593-607</ispartof><rights>2005 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-d197c9ddababae72c706f06202c94eb3fa56aa445f9158e83d56000276055573</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-d197c9ddababae72c706f06202c94eb3fa56aa445f9158e83d56000276055573</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15949778$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vet, Henrica C.W.</creatorcontrib><title>Clinically important outcomes in low back pain</title><title>Best practice &amp; research. Clinical rheumatology</title><addtitle>Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol</addtitle><description>Four important domains directly related to low back pain are: pain intensity, low-back-pain-specific disability, patient satisfaction with treatment outcome, and work disability. Within each of the domains, different questionnaires have been proposed. This chapter focuses on validated and widely used questionnaires. Details of the background and the measurement properties, and of the minimally clinically important change (MCIC) using these questionnaires, are described. The MCIC can be estimated using various methods and there is no consensus in the literature on what the most appropriate technique is. This chapter focuses primarily on two adequate and frequently used methods for estimating the MCIC. We argue that the MCIC should not be considered as a fixed value and that the MCIC values presented in this chapter are used as indications. For patients with subacute or chronic low back pain, the MCIC for pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) should at least be 20 mm and for acute low back pain it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be at the level of approximately 35 mm. If a numerical rating scale (NRS) is used it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 and 2.5 for patients with acute and chronic low back pain, respectively. For functional disability as measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire it seems reasonable that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 points, whereas an MCIC of at least 10 points when the Oswestry Disability Index is used. For global perceived effect, we argue that the MCIC is most appropriately defined in terms of at least ‘much improved’ or ‘very satisfied’, instead of including ‘slightly improved’. Finally, we argue that, from the point of view of cost effectiveness, every day of earlier return to work is important. The exact value for the MCIC can be determined, taking into account the aim of the measurement, the initial scores, the target population and the method used to assess MCIC.</description><subject>Disability Evaluation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>low back pain</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - physiopathology</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - rehabilitation</subject><subject>minimally clinically important change</subject><subject>Pain Measurement</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>questionnaires</subject><subject>reproducibility</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Severity of Illness Index</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>validity</subject><issn>1521-6942</issn><issn>1532-1770</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMorq7-AQ_Sk7fWSdokDXiRxS9Y8LL3kKZTzNo2Nekq--9t2QVvMoeZw_O-MA8hNxQyClTcb7MKw0fGAHgGeQaQn5ALynOWUinhdL4ZTYUq2IJcxridgFyx4pwsKFeFkrK8INmqdb2zpm33iesGH0bTj4nfjdZ3GBPXJ63_SSpjP5PBuP6KnDWmjXh93EuyeX7arF7T9fvL2-pxndqi4GNaUyWtqmtTTYOSWQmiAcGAWVVglTeGC2MmtFGUl1jmNRcAwKQAzrnMl-TuUDsE_7XDOOrORYtta3r0u6iFVAwoKyeQHUAbfIwBGz0E15mw1xT0LElv9SxJz5I05Hp2sCS3x_Zd1WH9FzlamYCHA4DTi98Og47WYW-xdgHtqGvv_uv_BVyudu0</recordid><startdate>20050801</startdate><enddate>20050801</enddate><creator>Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G.</creator><creator>de Vet, Henrica C.W.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050801</creationdate><title>Clinically important outcomes in low back pain</title><author>Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G. ; de Vet, Henrica C.W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-d197c9ddababae72c706f06202c94eb3fa56aa445f9158e83d56000276055573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Disability Evaluation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>low back pain</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - physiopathology</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - rehabilitation</topic><topic>minimally clinically important change</topic><topic>Pain Measurement</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>questionnaires</topic><topic>reproducibility</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Severity of Illness Index</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vet, Henrica C.W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Best practice &amp; research. Clinical rheumatology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ostelo, Raymond W.J.G.</au><au>de Vet, Henrica C.W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinically important outcomes in low back pain</atitle><jtitle>Best practice &amp; research. Clinical rheumatology</jtitle><addtitle>Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol</addtitle><date>2005-08-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>593</spage><epage>607</epage><pages>593-607</pages><issn>1521-6942</issn><eissn>1532-1770</eissn><abstract>Four important domains directly related to low back pain are: pain intensity, low-back-pain-specific disability, patient satisfaction with treatment outcome, and work disability. Within each of the domains, different questionnaires have been proposed. This chapter focuses on validated and widely used questionnaires. Details of the background and the measurement properties, and of the minimally clinically important change (MCIC) using these questionnaires, are described. The MCIC can be estimated using various methods and there is no consensus in the literature on what the most appropriate technique is. This chapter focuses primarily on two adequate and frequently used methods for estimating the MCIC. We argue that the MCIC should not be considered as a fixed value and that the MCIC values presented in this chapter are used as indications. For patients with subacute or chronic low back pain, the MCIC for pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) should at least be 20 mm and for acute low back pain it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be at the level of approximately 35 mm. If a numerical rating scale (NRS) is used it seems reasonable to suggest that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 and 2.5 for patients with acute and chronic low back pain, respectively. For functional disability as measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire it seems reasonable that the MCIC should at least be 3.5 points, whereas an MCIC of at least 10 points when the Oswestry Disability Index is used. For global perceived effect, we argue that the MCIC is most appropriately defined in terms of at least ‘much improved’ or ‘very satisfied’, instead of including ‘slightly improved’. Finally, we argue that, from the point of view of cost effectiveness, every day of earlier return to work is important. The exact value for the MCIC can be determined, taking into account the aim of the measurement, the initial scores, the target population and the method used to assess MCIC.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>15949778</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1521-6942
ispartof Best practice & research. Clinical rheumatology, 2005-08, Vol.19 (4), p.593-607
issn 1521-6942
1532-1770
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67920128
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Disability Evaluation
Humans
low back pain
Low Back Pain - physiopathology
Low Back Pain - rehabilitation
minimally clinically important change
Pain Measurement
Patient Satisfaction
questionnaires
reproducibility
Reproducibility of Results
Severity of Illness Index
Surveys and Questionnaires
Treatment Outcome
validity
title Clinically important outcomes in low back pain
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T20%3A14%3A41IST&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=Clinically%20important%20outcomes%20in%20low%20back%20pain&rft.jtitle=Best%20practice%20&%20research.%20Clinical%20rheumatology&rft.au=Ostelo,%20Raymond%20W.J.G.&rft.date=2005-08-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=593&rft.epage=607&rft.pages=593-607&rft.issn=1521-6942&rft.eissn=1532-1770&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67920128%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=67920128&rft_id=info:pmid/15949778&rft_els_id=S1521694205000264&rfr_iscdi=true