» Articles » PMID: 17064410

Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Pain and Disability Instruments in Low Back Pain Patients

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology
Date 2006 Oct 27
PMID 17064410
Citations 118
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The choice of an evaluative instrument has been hampered by the lack of head-to-head comparisons of responsiveness and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in subpopulations of low back pain (LBP). The objective of this study was to concurrently compare responsiveness and MCID for commonly used pain scales and functional instruments in four subpopulations of LBP patients.

Methods: The Danish versions of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the 23-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), the physical function and bodily pain subscales of the SF36, the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) and a numerical rating scale for pain (0-10) were completed by 191 patients from the primary and secondary sectors of the Danish health care system. Clinical change was estimated using a 7-point transition question and a numeric rating scale for importance. Responsiveness was operationalized using standardized response mean (SRM), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), and cut-point analysis. Subpopulation analyses were carried out on primary and secondary sector patients with LBP only or leg pain +/- LBP.

Results: RMQ was the most responsive instrument in primary and secondary sector patients with LBP only (SRM = 0.5-1.4; ROC = 0.75-0.94) whereas ODI and RMQ showed almost similar responsiveness in primary and secondary sector patients with leg pain (ODI: SRM = 0.4-0.9; ROC = 0.76-0.89; RMQ: SRM = 0.3-0.9; ROC = 0.72-0.88). In improved patients, the RMQ was more responsive in primary and secondary sector patients and LBP only patients (SRM = 1.3-1.7) while the RMQ and ODI were equally responsive in leg pain patients (SRM = 1.3 and 1.2 respectively). All pain measures demonstrated almost equal responsiveness. The MCID increased with increasing baseline score in primary sector and LBP only patients but was only marginally affected by patient entry point and pain location. The MCID of the percentage change score remained constant for the ODI (51%) and RMQ (38%) specifically and differed in the subpopulations.

Conclusion: RMQ is suitable for measuring change in LBP only patients and both ODI and RMQ are suitable for leg pain patients irrespectively of patient entry point. The MCID is baseline score dependent but only in certain subpopulations. Relative change measured using the ODI and RMQ was not affected by baseline score when patients quantified an important improvement.

Citing Articles

Impact of education in patients undergoing physiotherapy for lower back pain: a level I systematic review and meta-analysis.

Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Schafer L, Manocchio N, Bossa M, Foti C Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2025; 51(1):113.

PMID: 39969656 PMC: 11839871. DOI: 10.1007/s00068-025-02788-9.


Physiotherapists as first-contact practitioners for patients with low back pain in French primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

Kechichian A, Desmeules F, Girard P, Terrisse H, Vermorel C, Pinsault N BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):1427.

PMID: 39558330 PMC: 11572111. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11814-2.


Evaluating the efficacy of wearable biofeedback on the outcomes of exercise interventions in people with chronic non-specific spinal pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Deane J, Arvanitidis M, Briggs M, Falla D, Johnson M BMJ Open. 2024; 14(7):e085206.

PMID: 38977358 PMC: 11256027. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085206.


Allogeneic Disc Progenitor Cells Safely Increase Disc Volume and Improve Pain, Disability, and Quality of Life in Patients With Lumbar Disc Degeneration-Results of an FDA-Approved Biologic Therapy Randomized Clinical Trial.

Gornet M, Beall D, Davis T, Coric D, LaBagnara M, Krull A Int J Spine Surg. 2024; 18(3):237-248.

PMID: 38925869 PMC: 11535772. DOI: 10.14444/8609.


Psychometric Properties of Chosen Scales Evaluating Disability in Low Back Pain-Narrative Review.

Chmielewski B, Wilski M Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(11).

PMID: 38891215 PMC: 11172272. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12111139.


References
1.
Kopec J, Esdaile J, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping D . The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Measurement properties. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20(3):341-52. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199502000-00016. View

2.
Fujiwara A, Kobayashi N, Saiki K, Kitagawa T, Tamai K, Saotome K . Association of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score with the Oswestry Disability Index, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and short-form 36. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(14):1601-7. View

3.
Deyo R, Centor R . Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986; 39(11):897-906. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(86)90038-x. View

4.
Beaton D . Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(24):3192-9. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00015. View

5.
Muller U, Duetz M, Roeder C, Greenough C . Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: validation. Eur Spine J. 2004; 13(4):301-13. PMC: 3468051. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-003-0665-1. View