Cited by 438Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Outcome measures in chronic low back pain

Open access
Maughan, Elaine F., Lewis, Jeremy S.·2010·European Spine Journal

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00586-010-1353-6

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Nicholas M (1989) Self-efficacy and chronic pain. Paper pre- sented at the annual conference of the British Psychological Society, St. Andrews
  2. 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maughan, E. F., & Lewis, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Guy's Hospital (GB)
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Maughan, Elaine F.
Venue
European Spine Journal
Published
2010-04-17
Volume
19
Issue
9
Pages
1484-1494
ISSN
  • 0940-6719 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0932
OpenAlex
W2090368954
Cited by
438
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 12
FWCI
10.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Spine Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
chronic low back pain, outcome measures, minimal clinically important difference, numerical rating scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, responsiveness to change, global impression of change, standard error of measurement, ROC curve, disability assessment, pain self-efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Low Back Pain, Area Under Curve, Recovery of Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review