CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 114Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Responsiveness of general health status in chronic low back pain: a comparison of the COOP Charts and the SF-36

Open access
Bronfort, Gert, Bouter, Lex M·1999·Pain
DOI 10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00103-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the responsiveness and assess the concurrent validity of two functional health status instruments, the Dartmouth COOP charts and the SF-36 in chronic low-back pain (CLBP) patients. The data came from 129 of 174 patients who participated in a randomized clinical trial of the therapeutic management of CLBP. Reliable and valid disease-specific outcomes, patient-rated low-back pain and disability, were used as external criteria (EC) to identify improved and non-improved patients. Unpaired t-statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve calculations were used to quantify responsiveness. The two instruments had sufficient and very similar responsiveness using both EC. Comparisons between improved and non-improved patients for the COOP charts and SF-36, respectively, using pain as EC, yielded differences which translated into large effect sizes (0.8 and 0.7) (P=0.0008 and 0.003). Using disability as EC, differences of moderate effect size were found (0.5 and 0.6) (P=0.02 and 0.002). The ROC curve calculations using pain as EC resulted in areas under the curve of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.88) for the COOP charts, and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.88) for the SF-36. The corresponding areas using disability as EC were 0.67 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.79) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.84). The best cut-off point in both instruments for differentiating between improved and non-improved patients was approximately six percentage points. The constructs of functional health status, as reflected in the global scores of the two instruments, are highly correlated (r=0.82). Six of the instruments' nine dimensions are moderately to highly correlated (r=0.52 to 0.86), and the overall canonical correlation was high (R=0.9). In conclusion, both instruments seem equally suitable for use as outcome measures in clinical trials on CLBP. The COOP charts are faster to fill out and score.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00103-7

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Boline, 1995, J Manipulative Physiol Ther, 18, 148
  2. Bronfort, 1996, J Manipulative Physiol Ther, 19, 570
  3. Bruusgaard, 1993, Pract, 10, 212
  4. Goldsmith, 1993, OMERACT Committee J Rheumatol, 20, 561
  5. Kinnersley, 1994, Br J Gen Pract, 44, 545
  6. Landgraf, 1992, Aust Fam Physician, 21, 255
  7. Nelson, 1990, J Chronic Dis Fam Pract, 7, 205

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 114

Related

Metadata

Authors
Bronfort, G., & Bouter, L. M.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
ORCID
Bouter, Lex M
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1999-11
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
201-209
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00103-7
OpenAlex
W2090568934
Cited by
114
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
chronic low back pain, SF-36, responsiveness, concurrent validity, functional status, patient-reported outcome measures, disability, outcome measure comparison, clinical trial outcome measures
MeSH terms
Adult, Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal, Chronic Disease, Exercise Therapy, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Low Back Pain, Manipulation, Spinal

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