The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Responsiveness of Pain, Disability, and Physical Impairment Outcomes in Patients With Low Back Pain
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a head-to-head comparison of the responsiveness of pain, disability, and physical impairment measures in patients with low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pain, disability, and physical impairment measures are routinely measured in clinical practice and clinical research. However, to date, a head-to-head comparison has not been performed. METHODS: A numerical pain scale (0-10), the 24-item and 2 modified 18-item versions of the Roland Morris questionnaire, the patient specific functional scale, and physical impairment measures were completed by 155 patients with low back pain at baseline and then again after 6 weeks together with an 11-point global perceived effect scale. Responsiveness was evaluated by using effect sizes and t tests, correlating the change scores for each outcome with the global perceived effect score and by calculating the Guyatt responsiveness index. RESULTS: The most responsive outcome proved to be the patient specific functional scale (effect size = 1.6), followed by the numerical pain scale (effect size = 1.3) and 24-item Roland Morris questionnaire (effect size = 0.8). The responsiveness of the two 18-item Roland Morris versions was equal to the 24-item version. However, the physical impairment measures were not very responsive (effect size 0.1-0.6). The ranking of the responsiveness indices was consistent across all statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Physical impairments are routinely measured in clinical practice and clinical research, but the lower responsiveness indicates that this approach is not optimal. Our findings suggest that more emphasis should be placed on change in pain and disability scores than on change in physical impairments.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,395
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
Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments
Guyatt, G., Walter, S., & Norman, G. (1987) · Journal of Chronic Diseases · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5 · Cited by 1,880
Assessing Disability and Change on Individual Patients: A Report of a Patient Specific Measure
Stratford, P. (1995) · Physiotherapy Canada · doi:10.3138/ptc.47.4.258 · Cited by 928
Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986) · Journal of Chronic Diseases · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(86)90038-x · Cited by 792
Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments
Beurskens, A. J. H. M., de Vet, H. C. W., & Köke, A. J. A. (1996) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(95)00149-2 · Cited by 573
A comparison of different indices of responsiveness
Wright, J. G., & Young, N. L. (1997) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00373-3 · Cited by 450
Health Status Measures: Strategies and Analytic Methods for Assessing Change Scores
Stratford, P. W., Binkley, J. M., & Riddle, D. L. (1996) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/76.10.1109 · Cited by 433
The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: Validation of Its Use in Persons With Neck Dysfunction
Westaway, M. D., Stratford, P. W., & Binkley, J. M. (1998) · Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy · doi:10.2519/jospt.1998.27.5.331 · Cited by 425
Cited by
Responsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients with Low Back Pain
Childs, J. D., Piva, S. R., & Fritz, J. M. (2005) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29 · Cited by 1,481
Global Rating of Change Scales: A Review of Strengths and Weaknesses and Considerations for Design
Kamper, S. J., Maher, C. G., & Mackay, G. (2009) · Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · doi:10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163 · Cited by 1,458
Self-citationOutcome measures in chronic low back pain
Maughan, E. F., & Lewis, J. S. (2010) · European Spine Journal · doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1353-6 · Cited by 438
Cleland, J. A., Fritz, J. M., Whitman, J. M., & Palmer, J. A. (2006) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000201241.90914.22 · Cited by 398
Efficacy of paracetamol for acute low-back pain: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial
Williams, C. M., Maher, C. G., Latimer, J., McLachlan, A. J., Hancock, M. J., Day, R. O., & Lin, C.-W. C. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60805-9 · Cited by 325
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Pengel, L. H. M., Refshauge, K. M., & Maher, C. G.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 879-883
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1992794387
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 6.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Responsiveness of Pain, Disability, and Physical Impairment Outcomes in Patients With Low Back Pain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-200404150-00011
- The paper
- Pengel, L. H. M., Refshauge, K. M., & Maher, C. G. (2004). Responsiveness of Pain, Disability, and Physical Impairment Outcomes in Patients With Low Back Pain. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200404150-00011
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.