The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Outcome Measures for Low Back Pain Research: A Proposal for Standardized Use
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: An international group of back pain researchers considered recommendations for standardized measures in clinical outcomes research in patients with back pain. OBJECTIVES: To promote more standardization of outcome measurement in clinical trials and other types of outcomes research, including meta-analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, and multicenter studies. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Better standardization of outcome measurement would facilitate comparison of results among studies, and more complete reporting of relevant outcomes. Because back pain is rarely fatal or completely cured, outcome assessment is complex and involves multiple dimensions. These include symptoms, function, general well-being, work disability, and satisfaction with care. METHODS: The panel considered several factors in recommending a standard battery of outcome measures. These included reliability, validity, responsiveness, and practicality of the measures. In addition, compatibility with widely used and promoted batteries such, as the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Lumbar Cluster were considered to minimize the need for changes when these instruments are used. RESULTS: First, a six-item set was proposed, which is sufficiently brief that it could be used in routine care settings for quality improvement and for research purposes. An expanded outcome set, which would provide more precise measurement for research purposes, includes measures of severity and frequency of symptoms, either the Roland or the Oswestry Disability Scale, either the SF-12 or the EuroQol measure of general health status, a question about satisfaction with symptoms, three types of "disability days," and an optional single item on overall satisfaction with medical care. CONCLUSION: Standardized measurement of outcomes would facilitate scientific advances in clinical care. A short, 6-item questionnaire and a somewhat expanded, more precise battery of questionnaires can be recommended. Although many considerations support such recommendations, more data on responsiveness and the minimally important change in scores are needed for most of the instruments.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The minimal clinically important change of RMDQ is 3.45”
In the citing paper
“The secondary outcome measures selected were those that had the potential to be primary or secondary outcomes of a potential full clinical trial, based on the core outcome sets recommended for LBP.39 40”
Citations
Cites
(1992) · PubMed · Cited by 33,716
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
WARE, J. E., KOSINSKI, M., & KELLER, S. D. (1996) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 · Cited by 17,392
EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life
(1990) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 · Cited by 15,736
Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire
Fairbank, J. C. T., Couper, J., Davies, J. B., & O'Brien, J. P. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-29805-2_3023 · Cited by 3,954
A Study of the Natural History of Back Pain: Part I
ROLAND, M., & MORRIS, R. (1983) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004 · Cited by 3,395
Self-citationDeyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986) · Journal of Chronic Diseases · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(86)90038-x · Cited by 800
Self-citationAssessing health-related quality of life in patients with sciatica
Patrick, D. L., Deyo, R. A., Atlas, S. J., Singer, D. E., Chapin, A., & Keller, R. B. (1995) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199509000-00011 · Cited by 760
Self-citationMeasuring the Functional Status of Patients With Low Back Pain
Beurskens, A. J. H. M., de Vet, H. C. W., Köke, A. J. A., van der Heijden, G. J. M. G., & Knipschild, P. G. (1995) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199505000-00008 · Cited by 491
Self-citationThe North American Spine Society Lumbar Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument
Daltroy, L. H., Cats‐Baril, W. L., Katz, J. N., Fossel, A. H., & Liang, M. H. (1996) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-199603150-00017 · Cited by 478
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Deyo, 1988, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 69, 1044
- Fairbank, 1980, Physiotherapy, 66, 271
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fairbank, J. C. T., & Pynsent, P. B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 · Cited by 5,851
Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations
Dworkin, R. H., Turk, D. C., Farrar, J. T., Haythornthwaite, J. A., Jensen, M. P., Katz, N. P., Kerns, R. D., Stucki, G., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., et al. (2005) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012 · Cited by 3,732
Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations
Turk, D. C., Dworkin, R. H., Allen, R. R., Bellamy, N., Brandenburg, N., Carr, D. B., Cleeland, C., Dionne, R., Farrar, J. T., Galer, B. S., et al. (2003) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2003.08.001 · Cited by 3,510
Chou, R., Qaseem, A., Snow, V., Casey, D., Cross, J. T., Shekelle, P., Owens, D. K., & for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians and the American College of Physicians/American Pain Society Low Back Pain Guidelines Panel* (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00006 · Cited by 2,718
Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Deyo, R. A., Stratford, P., Waddell, G., Croft, P., Von Korff, M., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2008) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31815e3a10 · Cited by 2,009
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Deyo, R. A., Battie, M., Beurskens, A. J. H. M., Bombardier, C., Croft, P., Koes, B., Malmivaara, A., Roland, M., Von Korff, M., & Waddell, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Group Health Cooperative (US)
- Keele University (GB)
- Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Deyo, Richard A.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 1998-09
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 2003-2013
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2145513209
- Cited by
- 1,229
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 70
- FWCI
- 15.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Spine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS 08194)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- low back pain, outcome measures, clinical trials, work disability, disability days, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, symptom severity, Oswestry Disability Index, SF-12, EuroQol, minimally important change, responsiveness
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Trials as Topic, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Low Back Pain
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
