Cited by 621Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Preliminary development of a clinical prediction rule for determining which patients with low back pain will respond to a stabilization exercise program

Hicks, Gregory E., Fritz, Julie M., Delitto, Anthony, McGill, Stuart M.·2005·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective To develop a clinical prediction rule to predict treatment response to a stabilization exercise program for patients with low back pain (LBP).Design A prospective, cohort study of patients with nonradicular LBP referred to physical therapy (PT).Setting Outpatient PT clinics.Participants Fifty-four patients with nonradicular LBP.Intervention A standardized stabilization exercise program.Main outcome measure Treatment response (success or failure) was categorized based on changes in the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores after 8 weeks.Results Eighteen subjects were categorized as treatment successes, 15 as treatment failures, and 21 as somewhat improved. After using regression analyses to determine the association between standardized examination variables and treatment response status, preliminary clinical prediction rules were developed for predicting success (positive likelihood ratio [LR], 4.0) and failure (negative LR, .18). The most important variables were age, straight-leg raise, prone instability test, aberrant motions, lumbar hypermobility, and fear-avoidance beliefs.Conclusions It appears that the response to a stabilization exercise program in patients with LBP can be predicted from variables collected from the clinical examination. The prediction rules could be used to determine whether patients with LBP are likely to benefit from stabilization exercises.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.033

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hicks, G. E., Fritz, J. M., Delitto, A., & McGill, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
Hicks, Gregory E.
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-09
Volume
86
Issue
9
Pages
1753-1762
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124409697
Cited by
621
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 50
FWCI
22.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
low back pain, stabilization exercises, clinical prediction rules, treatment response prediction, physiotherapy, Oswestry Disability Index, straight leg raise, fear-avoidance beliefs, age
MeSH terms
Adult, Exercise Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Predictive Value of Tests, Probability, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Severity of Illness Index, Cohort Studies, Confidence Intervals, Treatment Outcome, Low Back Pain, Physical Therapy Modalities

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