A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain
Abstract Objective To critically and systematically review methods used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for nonspecific low back pain. Study Design and Setting A computerized search was conducted of MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, and EMBASE up to May 2011. Studies were included...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2012-03, Vol.65 (3), p.253-261 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 261 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 253 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 65 |
| creator | Ferreira, Manuela L Herbert, Robert D Ferreira, Paulo H Latimer, Jane Ostelo, Raymond W Nascimento, Dafne P Smeets, Rob J |
| description | Abstract Objective To critically and systematically review methods used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for nonspecific low back pain. Study Design and Setting A computerized search was conducted of MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, and EMBASE up to May 2011. Studies were included if they were primary reports intended to measure the smallest worthwhile effect of a health intervention (although they did not need to use this terminology) for nonspecific low back pain. Results The search located 31 studies, which provided a total of 129 estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect. The estimates were given a variety of names, including the Minimum Clinically Important Difference, Minimum Important Difference, Minimum Worthwhile Reductions, and Minimum Important Change. Most estimates were obtained using anchor- or distribution-based methods. These methods are not (or not directly) based on patients’ perceptions, are not intervention-specific, and are not formulated in terms of differences in outcomes with and without intervention. Conclusion The methods used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain have important limitations. We recommend that the benefit–harm trade-off method be used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effects of intervention because it overcomes these limitations. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.018 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_917578283</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435611002289</els_id><sourcerecordid>917578283</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-6594cb69ce03c763a0d400812da772b05fdbefb55f924d29f94d68bdcbff80d33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFksFu1DAQhiMEokvhFSpLCHFKGDtx4lwQVQUFqRIH4Gw59ljrNImDnXTVt8fRblupF06-fP_MeL7JsgsKBQVaf-qLXg9uwtkVDCgtoC6AihfZjopG5Lxl9GW2A9HyvCp5fZa9ibEHoA00_HV2xlKmEkLssvmS6OAWp9VAAt45PBBvyYjL3ptI1oiGLJ4YXDCMqR1Z9kjiqIYB40IOPiz7w94NSNBa1MuWdVNi73BanJ8isT6QwR9Ip_QtmZWb3mavrBoivju959mfb19_X33Pb35e_7i6vMl1JWDJa95WuqtbjVDqpi4VmApAUGZU07AOuDUd2o5z27LKsNa2lalFZ3RnrQBTlufZx2PdOfi_a5pWji5qHAY1oV-jbGnDG8HERr5_RvZ-DVMaTlIoS1a1nG5UfaR08DEGtHIOblThPkFyUyJ7-aBEbkok1DIpScGLU_m1G9E8xh4cJODDCVAxabBBTdrFJ47zhjW0StyXI4dpbclUkFE7nDQaF9LupfHu_7N8flZiozb5t3iP8enfMjIJ8td2QNv9UArAmGjLf0x4w1A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1033249513</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ferreira, Manuela L ; Herbert, Robert D ; Ferreira, Paulo H ; Latimer, Jane ; Ostelo, Raymond W ; Nascimento, Dafne P ; Smeets, Rob J</creator><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Manuela L ; Herbert, Robert D ; Ferreira, Paulo H ; Latimer, Jane ; Ostelo, Raymond W ; Nascimento, Dafne P ; Smeets, Rob J</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objective To critically and systematically review methods used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for nonspecific low back pain. Study Design and Setting A computerized search was conducted of MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, and EMBASE up to May 2011. Studies were included if they were primary reports intended to measure the smallest worthwhile effect of a health intervention (although they did not need to use this terminology) for nonspecific low back pain. Results The search located 31 studies, which provided a total of 129 estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect. The estimates were given a variety of names, including the Minimum Clinically Important Difference, Minimum Important Difference, Minimum Worthwhile Reductions, and Minimum Important Change. Most estimates were obtained using anchor- or distribution-based methods. These methods are not (or not directly) based on patients’ perceptions, are not intervention-specific, and are not formulated in terms of differences in outcomes with and without intervention. Conclusion The methods used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain have important limitations. We recommend that the benefit–harm trade-off method be used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effects of intervention because it overcomes these limitations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.018</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22014888</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Back pain ; Biological and medical sciences ; Clinical trials ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Costs ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Databases, Bibliographic ; Diseases of the osteoarticular system ; Diseases of the spine ; Epidemiology ; Health promotion ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Literature review ; Low back pain ; Low Back Pain - therapy ; Medical sciences ; Minimum clinically important difference ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - statistics & numerical data ; Patient Satisfaction ; Patients ; Questionnaires ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data ; Research design ; Sufficiently important difference</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2012-03, Vol.65 (3), p.253-261</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-6594cb69ce03c763a0d400812da772b05fdbefb55f924d29f94d68bdcbff80d33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-6594cb69ce03c763a0d400812da772b05fdbefb55f924d29f94d68bdcbff80d33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435611002289$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=25572714$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22014888$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Manuela L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herbert, Robert D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Paulo H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Latimer, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ostelo, Raymond W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nascimento, Dafne P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smeets, Rob J</creatorcontrib><title>A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Abstract Objective To critically and systematically review methods used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for nonspecific low back pain. Study Design and Setting A computerized search was conducted of MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, and EMBASE up to May 2011. Studies were included if they were primary reports intended to measure the smallest worthwhile effect of a health intervention (although they did not need to use this terminology) for nonspecific low back pain. Results The search located 31 studies, which provided a total of 129 estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect. The estimates were given a variety of names, including the Minimum Clinically Important Difference, Minimum Important Difference, Minimum Worthwhile Reductions, and Minimum Important Change. Most estimates were obtained using anchor- or distribution-based methods. These methods are not (or not directly) based on patients’ perceptions, are not intervention-specific, and are not formulated in terms of differences in outcomes with and without intervention. Conclusion The methods used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain have important limitations. We recommend that the benefit–harm trade-off method be used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effects of intervention because it overcomes these limitations.</description><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Databases, Bibliographic</subject><subject>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</subject><subject>Diseases of the spine</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Health promotion</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Literature review</subject><subject>Low back pain</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - therapy</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Minimum clinically important difference</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Research design</subject><subject>Sufficiently important difference</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFksFu1DAQhiMEokvhFSpLCHFKGDtx4lwQVQUFqRIH4Gw59ljrNImDnXTVt8fRblupF06-fP_MeL7JsgsKBQVaf-qLXg9uwtkVDCgtoC6AihfZjopG5Lxl9GW2A9HyvCp5fZa9ibEHoA00_HV2xlKmEkLssvmS6OAWp9VAAt45PBBvyYjL3ptI1oiGLJ4YXDCMqR1Z9kjiqIYB40IOPiz7w94NSNBa1MuWdVNi73BanJ8isT6QwR9Ip_QtmZWb3mavrBoivju959mfb19_X33Pb35e_7i6vMl1JWDJa95WuqtbjVDqpi4VmApAUGZU07AOuDUd2o5z27LKsNa2lalFZ3RnrQBTlufZx2PdOfi_a5pWji5qHAY1oV-jbGnDG8HERr5_RvZ-DVMaTlIoS1a1nG5UfaR08DEGtHIOblThPkFyUyJ7-aBEbkok1DIpScGLU_m1G9E8xh4cJODDCVAxabBBTdrFJ47zhjW0StyXI4dpbclUkFE7nDQaF9LupfHu_7N8flZiozb5t3iP8enfMjIJ8td2QNv9UArAmGjLf0x4w1A</recordid><startdate>20120301</startdate><enddate>20120301</enddate><creator>Ferreira, Manuela L</creator><creator>Herbert, Robert D</creator><creator>Ferreira, Paulo H</creator><creator>Latimer, Jane</creator><creator>Ostelo, Raymond W</creator><creator>Nascimento, Dafne P</creator><creator>Smeets, Rob J</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>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></search><sort><creationdate>20120301</creationdate><title>A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain</title><author>Ferreira, Manuela L ; Herbert, Robert D ; Ferreira, Paulo H ; Latimer, Jane ; Ostelo, Raymond W ; Nascimento, Dafne P ; Smeets, Rob J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c480t-6594cb69ce03c763a0d400812da772b05fdbefb55f924d29f94d68bdcbff80d33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Databases, Bibliographic</topic><topic>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</topic><topic>Diseases of the spine</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Health promotion</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Literature review</topic><topic>Low back pain</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - therapy</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Minimum clinically important difference</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Research design</topic><topic>Sufficiently important difference</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Manuela L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herbert, Robert D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Paulo H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Latimer, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ostelo, Raymond W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nascimento, Dafne P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smeets, Rob J</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><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>Ferreira, Manuela L</au><au>Herbert, Robert D</au><au>Ferreira, Paulo H</au><au>Latimer, Jane</au><au>Ostelo, Raymond W</au><au>Nascimento, Dafne P</au><au>Smeets, Rob J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2012-03-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>253</spage><epage>261</epage><pages>253-261</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objective To critically and systematically review methods used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for nonspecific low back pain. Study Design and Setting A computerized search was conducted of MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, and EMBASE up to May 2011. Studies were included if they were primary reports intended to measure the smallest worthwhile effect of a health intervention (although they did not need to use this terminology) for nonspecific low back pain. Results The search located 31 studies, which provided a total of 129 estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect. The estimates were given a variety of names, including the Minimum Clinically Important Difference, Minimum Important Difference, Minimum Worthwhile Reductions, and Minimum Important Change. Most estimates were obtained using anchor- or distribution-based methods. These methods are not (or not directly) based on patients’ perceptions, are not intervention-specific, and are not formulated in terms of differences in outcomes with and without intervention. Conclusion The methods used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain have important limitations. We recommend that the benefit–harm trade-off method be used to estimate the smallest worthwhile effects of intervention because it overcomes these limitations.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>22014888</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.018</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2012-03, Vol.65 (3), p.253-261 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_917578283 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Back pain Biological and medical sciences Clinical trials Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs Data Interpretation, Statistical Databases, Bibliographic Diseases of the osteoarticular system Diseases of the spine Epidemiology Health promotion Humans Internal Medicine Literature review Low back pain Low Back Pain - therapy Medical sciences Minimum clinically important difference Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - statistics & numerical data Patient Satisfaction Patients Questionnaires Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data Research design Sufficiently important difference |
| title | A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for 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=2025-01-31T00%3A53%3A16IST&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=A%20critical%20review%20of%20methods%20used%20to%20determine%20the%20smallest%20worthwhile%20effect%20of%20interventions%20for%20low%20back%20pain&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Ferreira,%20Manuela%20L&rft.date=2012-03-01&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=253&rft.epage=261&rft.pages=253-261&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.018&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E917578283%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=1033249513&rft_id=info:pmid/22014888&rft_els_id=S0895435611002289&rfr_iscdi=true |