Loading…
How little pain and disability do patients with low back pain have to experience to feel that they have recovered?
Epidemiological and clinical studies of people with low back pain (LBP) commonly measure the incidence of recovery. The pain numerical rating scale (NRS), scores from 0 to 10, and Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), scores from 0 to 24, are two instruments often used to define recovery. O...
Saved in:
Published in: | European spine journal 2010-09, Vol.19 (9), p.1495-1501 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-5e9e2603afe03a7609ef620a3d61451cbb52da4873664836872dd4e8d7dda5303 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-5e9e2603afe03a7609ef620a3d61451cbb52da4873664836872dd4e8d7dda5303 |
container_end_page | 1501 |
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1495 |
container_title | European spine journal |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Kamper, Steven J. Maher, Christopher G. Herbert, Robert D. Hancock, Mark J. Hush, Julia M. Smeets, Robert J. |
description | Epidemiological and clinical studies of people with low back pain (LBP) commonly measure the incidence of recovery. The pain numerical rating scale (NRS), scores from 0 to 10, and Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), scores from 0 to 24, are two instruments often used to define recovery. On both scales higher scores indicate greater severity. There is no consensus, however, on the cutoff scores on these scales that classify people as having recovered. The aim of this study was to determine which cutoff scores most accurately classify those who had recovered from LBP. Subjects from four clinical studies were categorized as ‘recovered’ or ‘unrecovered’ according to their self-rating on a global perceived effect scale. Odd ratios were calculated for scores of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the NRS and RMDQ to predict perceived recovery. Scores of 0 on the NRS and ≤2 on the RMDQ most accurately identify patients who consider themselves completely recovered. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) for predicting recovery was 43.9 for a score of 0 on the NRS and 17.6 for a score of ≤2 on the RMDQ. There was no apparent effect of LBP duration or length of follow-up period on the optimal cutoff score. OR for the NRS were generally higher than those for RMDQ. Cutoffs of 0 on the NRS and 2 on the RMDQ most accurately classify subjects as recovered from LBP. Subjects consider pain more than disability when determining their recovery status. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00586-010-1366-1 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2989296</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>748999890</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-5e9e2603afe03a7609ef620a3d61451cbb52da4873664836872dd4e8d7dda5303</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU2P1DAMhiMEYoeBH8AFRVw4FZw0TZsLCK2ARVqJC5yjtHF3snSaIcnMMv8eD12WD4mLI9tPXvuVGXsq4KUAaF9lgKbTFQioRK11Je6xlVC1rMDU8j5bgVFQ6VaYM_Yo52sA0RjQD9mZBCmNkLBi6SLe8CmUMiHfuTBzN3vuQ3Z9oOqR-0jlEnAumd-EsuET8b0bvi70xh2Ql8jx-w4TUcPPbESceNm4QgGPC5RwiAdM6N88Zg9GN2V8cvuu2Zf37z6fX1SXnz58PH97WQ1Kd6Vq0KDUULsRKbQaDI5agqu9FqoRQ9830jvVteRcdbXuWum9ws633rumhnrNXi-6u32_RT-Qh-Qmu0th69LRRhfs3505bOxVPFhpOiONJoEXtwIpfttjLnYb8oDT5GaM-2xb1RlD7GnU83_I67hPM7kjyNC-LSiCxAINKeaccLxbRYA93dMu97RwyskVhTV79qeHux-_DkiAXIBMrfkK0-_J_1f9AbAdrB4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>749614704</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How little pain and disability do patients with low back pain have to experience to feel that they have recovered?</title><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Kamper, Steven J. ; Maher, Christopher G. ; Herbert, Robert D. ; Hancock, Mark J. ; Hush, Julia M. ; Smeets, Robert J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kamper, Steven J. ; Maher, Christopher G. ; Herbert, Robert D. ; Hancock, Mark J. ; Hush, Julia M. ; Smeets, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><description>Epidemiological and clinical studies of people with low back pain (LBP) commonly measure the incidence of recovery. The pain numerical rating scale (NRS), scores from 0 to 10, and Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), scores from 0 to 24, are two instruments often used to define recovery. On both scales higher scores indicate greater severity. There is no consensus, however, on the cutoff scores on these scales that classify people as having recovered. The aim of this study was to determine which cutoff scores most accurately classify those who had recovered from LBP. Subjects from four clinical studies were categorized as ‘recovered’ or ‘unrecovered’ according to their self-rating on a global perceived effect scale. Odd ratios were calculated for scores of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the NRS and RMDQ to predict perceived recovery. Scores of 0 on the NRS and ≤2 on the RMDQ most accurately identify patients who consider themselves completely recovered. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) for predicting recovery was 43.9 for a score of 0 on the NRS and 17.6 for a score of ≤2 on the RMDQ. There was no apparent effect of LBP duration or length of follow-up period on the optimal cutoff score. OR for the NRS were generally higher than those for RMDQ. Cutoffs of 0 on the NRS and 2 on the RMDQ most accurately classify subjects as recovered from LBP. Subjects consider pain more than disability when determining their recovery status.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0940-6719</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0932</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1366-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20229120</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Area Under Curve ; Disability Evaluation ; Humans ; Low Back Pain - therapy ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neurosurgery ; Odds Ratio ; Original ; Original Article ; Pain ; Patient Satisfaction ; Recovery of Function ; ROC Curve ; Surgical Orthopedics ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>European spine journal, 2010-09, Vol.19 (9), p.1495-1501</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-5e9e2603afe03a7609ef620a3d61451cbb52da4873664836872dd4e8d7dda5303</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-5e9e2603afe03a7609ef620a3d61451cbb52da4873664836872dd4e8d7dda5303</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989296/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989296/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20229120$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kamper, Steven J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maher, Christopher G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herbert, Robert D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hancock, Mark J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hush, Julia M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smeets, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><title>How little pain and disability do patients with low back pain have to experience to feel that they have recovered?</title><title>European spine journal</title><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><description>Epidemiological and clinical studies of people with low back pain (LBP) commonly measure the incidence of recovery. The pain numerical rating scale (NRS), scores from 0 to 10, and Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), scores from 0 to 24, are two instruments often used to define recovery. On both scales higher scores indicate greater severity. There is no consensus, however, on the cutoff scores on these scales that classify people as having recovered. The aim of this study was to determine which cutoff scores most accurately classify those who had recovered from LBP. Subjects from four clinical studies were categorized as ‘recovered’ or ‘unrecovered’ according to their self-rating on a global perceived effect scale. Odd ratios were calculated for scores of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the NRS and RMDQ to predict perceived recovery. Scores of 0 on the NRS and ≤2 on the RMDQ most accurately identify patients who consider themselves completely recovered. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) for predicting recovery was 43.9 for a score of 0 on the NRS and 17.6 for a score of ≤2 on the RMDQ. There was no apparent effect of LBP duration or length of follow-up period on the optimal cutoff score. OR for the NRS were generally higher than those for RMDQ. Cutoffs of 0 on the NRS and 2 on the RMDQ most accurately classify subjects as recovered from LBP. Subjects consider pain more than disability when determining their recovery status.</description><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Disability Evaluation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - therapy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Recovery of Function</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Surgical Orthopedics</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0940-6719</issn><issn>1432-0932</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kU2P1DAMhiMEYoeBH8AFRVw4FZw0TZsLCK2ARVqJC5yjtHF3snSaIcnMMv8eD12WD4mLI9tPXvuVGXsq4KUAaF9lgKbTFQioRK11Je6xlVC1rMDU8j5bgVFQ6VaYM_Yo52sA0RjQD9mZBCmNkLBi6SLe8CmUMiHfuTBzN3vuQ3Z9oOqR-0jlEnAumd-EsuET8b0bvi70xh2Ql8jx-w4TUcPPbESceNm4QgGPC5RwiAdM6N88Zg9GN2V8cvuu2Zf37z6fX1SXnz58PH97WQ1Kd6Vq0KDUULsRKbQaDI5agqu9FqoRQ9830jvVteRcdbXuWum9ws633rumhnrNXi-6u32_RT-Qh-Qmu0th69LRRhfs3505bOxVPFhpOiONJoEXtwIpfttjLnYb8oDT5GaM-2xb1RlD7GnU83_I67hPM7kjyNC-LSiCxAINKeaccLxbRYA93dMu97RwyskVhTV79qeHux-_DkiAXIBMrfkK0-_J_1f9AbAdrB4</recordid><startdate>20100901</startdate><enddate>20100901</enddate><creator>Kamper, Steven J.</creator><creator>Maher, Christopher G.</creator><creator>Herbert, Robert D.</creator><creator>Hancock, Mark J.</creator><creator>Hush, Julia M.</creator><creator>Smeets, Robert J.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</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>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100901</creationdate><title>How little pain and disability do patients with low back pain have to experience to feel that they have recovered?</title><author>Kamper, Steven J. ; Maher, Christopher G. ; Herbert, Robert D. ; Hancock, Mark J. ; Hush, Julia M. ; Smeets, Robert J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-5e9e2603afe03a7609ef620a3d61451cbb52da4873664836872dd4e8d7dda5303</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Disability Evaluation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - therapy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Recovery of Function</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Surgical Orthopedics</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kamper, Steven J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maher, Christopher G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herbert, Robert D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hancock, Mark J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hush, Julia M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smeets, Robert J.</creatorcontrib><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>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</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 China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kamper, Steven J.</au><au>Maher, Christopher G.</au><au>Herbert, Robert D.</au><au>Hancock, Mark J.</au><au>Hush, Julia M.</au><au>Smeets, Robert J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How little pain and disability do patients with low back pain have to experience to feel that they have recovered?</atitle><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle><stitle>Eur Spine J</stitle><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><date>2010-09-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1495</spage><epage>1501</epage><pages>1495-1501</pages><issn>0940-6719</issn><eissn>1432-0932</eissn><abstract>Epidemiological and clinical studies of people with low back pain (LBP) commonly measure the incidence of recovery. The pain numerical rating scale (NRS), scores from 0 to 10, and Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), scores from 0 to 24, are two instruments often used to define recovery. On both scales higher scores indicate greater severity. There is no consensus, however, on the cutoff scores on these scales that classify people as having recovered. The aim of this study was to determine which cutoff scores most accurately classify those who had recovered from LBP. Subjects from four clinical studies were categorized as ‘recovered’ or ‘unrecovered’ according to their self-rating on a global perceived effect scale. Odd ratios were calculated for scores of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the NRS and RMDQ to predict perceived recovery. Scores of 0 on the NRS and ≤2 on the RMDQ most accurately identify patients who consider themselves completely recovered. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) for predicting recovery was 43.9 for a score of 0 on the NRS and 17.6 for a score of ≤2 on the RMDQ. There was no apparent effect of LBP duration or length of follow-up period on the optimal cutoff score. OR for the NRS were generally higher than those for RMDQ. Cutoffs of 0 on the NRS and 2 on the RMDQ most accurately classify subjects as recovered from LBP. Subjects consider pain more than disability when determining their recovery status.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>20229120</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00586-010-1366-1</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0940-6719 |
ispartof | European spine journal, 2010-09, Vol.19 (9), p.1495-1501 |
issn | 0940-6719 1432-0932 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2989296 |
source | PubMed (Medline); Springer Link |
subjects | Area Under Curve Disability Evaluation Humans Low Back Pain - therapy Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neurosurgery Odds Ratio Original Original Article Pain Patient Satisfaction Recovery of Function ROC Curve Surgical Orthopedics Surveys and Questionnaires Treatment Outcome |
title | How little pain and disability do patients with low back pain have to experience to feel that they have recovered? |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T06%3A54%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20little%20pain%20and%20disability%20do%20patients%20with%20low%20back%20pain%20have%20to%20experience%20to%20feel%20that%20they%20have%20recovered?&rft.jtitle=European%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Kamper,%20Steven%20J.&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1495&rft.epage=1501&rft.pages=1495-1501&rft.issn=0940-6719&rft.eissn=1432-0932&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00586-010-1366-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E748999890%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-5e9e2603afe03a7609ef620a3d61451cbb52da4873664836872dd4e8d7dda5303%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=749614704&rft_id=info:pmid/20229120&rfr_iscdi=true |