Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 19, Issue 9, pp 1484–1494 | Cite as

Outcome measures in chronic low back pain

  • Elaine F. Maughan
  • Jeremy S. Lewis
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Low back pain Outcome measures Minimally clinically important change Responsiveness Functional assessment Clinical significance Patient-reported outcomes 

References

  1. 1.
    Waddell G (2006) Preventing incapacity in people with musculoskeletal disorders. Br Med Bull 77–78:55–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Revichi D et al (2008) Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: an IMMPACT survey of people with pain. Pain 137:276–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taylor W (2005) Musculoskeletal pain in adult New Zealand population: prevalence and impact. N Z Med J 118:1221Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewis J, Hewitt J, Billington L et al (2005) A randomized control trial comparing two physiotherapy interventions for chronic low back pain. Spine 30:711–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heymans M, van Tulder M, Esmail R et al (2005) Back schools for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 30:2153–2163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    NICE clinical guideline 88 (May 2009) Low back pain. Early management of persistent non-specific low back painGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Underwood M, Morton V, Farrin A (2007) Do baseline characteristics predict response to treatment for low back pain? Secondary analysis of the UK BEAM dataset. Rheumatology 46(8):1297–1302Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turk DC (2002) Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for patients with chronic pain. Clin J Pain 18:355–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Sullivan P (2005) Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: maladaptive movement and control impairments as underlying mechanism. Man Ther 10:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wand BM, O’Connell NE (2008) Chronic non-specific low back pain—sub-groups or a single mechanism? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hurst H, Bolton J (2004) Assessing the clinical significance of change scores recorded on subjective outcome measures. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 27:26–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beaton D, Tarasuk V, Katz J et al (2001) Are you better? A qualitative study into the meaning of being better and its implications for health status measurement. Arthritis Rheumatol 42(supplement):S274Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Terwee C (2003) On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 12:349–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A (2003) The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 12:12–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt G (1989) Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinical important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crosby R, Kolotkin R, Williams G (2003) Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56:395–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fritz J, Irrgang J (2001) A comparison of a modified Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the Quebec back pain disability scale. Phys Ther 81:776–788Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Terwee C (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT (2005) Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 113:9–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lauridsen H, Hartvigsen J, Korsholm L et al (2007) Choice of external criteria in back pain research: Does it matter? Recommendations based on analysis of responsiveness. Pain 131:112–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ostelo R, Deyo R, Stratford P et al (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain. Spine 33:90–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low back pain. Spine 8:141–144Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fairbank J, Pynsent P (2000) The Oswestry disablility index. Spine 25:2940–2953Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nicholas M (1989) Self-efficacy and chronic pain. Paper presented at the annual conference of the British Psychological Society, St. AndrewsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M et al (1995) Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiother Can 47:258–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davidson M, Keating J (2002) A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. Phys Ther 82:8–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    De Vet H, Terwee C, Knol D, Bouter L (2006) When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 59:1033–1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ostelo R, de Vet H (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19:593–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deyo R, Centor R (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Beurskens A, de Vet H, Koke A (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grotle M, Brox JL, Vallestad N (2004) Functional status and disability questionnaires: what do they assess? A systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires. Spine 30:130–140Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brouwer S, Kuijer W, Dijkstra P, Goeken L et al (2003) Reliability and stability of the Roland Morris questionnaire: intraclass correlation and limits of agreement. Disabil Rehabil 26:162–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Department of Health (2008) High quality care for all—NHS next stage review final report, section 4. Quality at the heart of everything we do, Crown Copyright, The Stationery Office, p 47. http://www.tsoshop.co.uk
  34. 34.
    Wyrwich K, Tierney W, Wolinsky F (1999) Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 52:861–873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Childs J, Riva S, Fritz J (2005) Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine 30:1331–1334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stratford P, Binkley J, Riddle D, Guyatt G (1998) Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: Part 1. Phys Ther 78:1186–1196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wyrwich K (2004) Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: is there a connection? J Biopharm Stat 14:97–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Farrar JT, Young J, LaMoreaux L et al (2001) Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94:149–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri C, Ciapetti A, Grassi W (2004) Minimal critical important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain 8:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baldwin ML, Butler RJ, Johnson WG et al (2007) Self-reported severity measures as predictors of return to work outcomes in occupational back pain. J Occup Rehabil 17:68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Beurskens A, de Vet H, Koke A (1999) A patient specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 22:144–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pengel L, Refshauge K, Maher C (2004) Responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment outcomes in patients with low back pain. Spine 29:879–883CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Chatman A, Hyams S, Neel J et al (1997) The patient specific functional scale: measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther 77:820–829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hudak P, Wright J (2004) The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Spine 25:3167–3317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Asghari A, Nicholas M (2001) Pain self-efficacy beliefs and pain behaviour. A prospective study. Pain 94:85–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nicholas M (2007) The Pain self efficacy questionnaire: taking pain into account. Eur J Pain 11:153–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Williams A, Richardson P, Nicholas M, Pither C, Harding V, Ralphs J (1996) Inpatient versus outpatient pain management results of a chronic pain trial. Pain 66:13–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Norman G, Stratford P, Regehr G (1997) Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 50:869–879CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schmitt J, Di Fabio R (2005) The value of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86:2270–2276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Von Korff M, Jensen P, Karoli P (2000) Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Spine 25:3140–3151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    De Vet H (2007) Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 17:479–487Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yelland J, Schluter P (2006) Defining worthwhile and desired responses to treatment of chronic low back pain. Pain Med 7:38–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Walsh D, Kelly S, Johnson P et al (2003) Performance problems of patients with chronic low back pain and the measurement of patient-centered outcome. Spine 29:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Westaway M, Stratford P, Binkley J (1998) The patient specific functional scale: validation of its use in persons with neck dysfunction. J Sports Phys Ther 27:331–338Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jordan K, Dunn K, Lewis M et al (2006) A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 59:45–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dworkin R, Turk D, Wyrwrich K, Beaton D et al (2008) Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 9:105–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Haywood K (2006) Patient reported outcome I: Measuring what matters in musculoskeletal care. Musculoskeletal Care 4:187–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Greenhalgh J, Long A, Flynn (2005) The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med 60:833–843Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS TrustLondonUK
  2. 2.St George’s NHS Healthcare TrustLondonUK
  3. 3.St George’s University of LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Therapy DepartmentChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations