Lauridsen Henrik H, Hartvigsen Jan, Manniche Claus, Korsholm Lars, Grunnet-Nilsson Niels
Clinical Locomotion Science, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006 Oct 25;7:82. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-7-82.
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.
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.
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.
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.
由于缺乏对腰痛(LBP)亚组中反应性和最小临床重要差异(MCID)的直接比较,评估工具的选择受到了阻碍。本研究的目的是同时比较常用疼痛量表和功能工具在四个LBP患者亚组中的反应性和MCID。
丹麦医疗保健系统初级和二级部门的191名患者完成了丹麦版的奥斯威斯利残疾指数(ODI)、23项罗兰·莫里斯残疾问卷(RMQ)、SF36的身体功能和身体疼痛子量表、腰痛评定量表(LBPRS)以及疼痛数字评定量表(0-10)。使用7分过渡问题和重要性数字评定量表估计临床变化。通过标准化反应均值(SRM)、受试者操作特征曲线(ROC)下面积和切点分析来实现反应性评估。对仅患有LBP或伴有腿痛±LBP的初级和二级部门患者进行亚组分析。
RMQ是仅患有LBP的初级和二级部门患者中反应性最强的工具(SRM = 0.5-1.4;ROC = 0.75-0.94),而ODI和RMQ在伴有腿痛的初级和二级部门患者中显示出几乎相似的反应性(ODI:SRM = 0.4-0.9;ROC = 0.76-0.89;RMQ:SRM = 0.3-0.9;ROC = 0.72-0.88)。在病情改善的患者中,RMQ在初级和二级部门患者以及仅患有LBP的患者中反应性更强(SRM = 1.3-1.7),而RMQ和ODI在伴有腿痛的患者中反应性相当(SRM分别为1.3和1.2)。所有疼痛测量指标的反应性几乎相同。在初级部门和仅患有LBP的患者中,MCID随基线评分的增加而增加,但仅受患者入组点和疼痛部位的轻微影响。ODI(51%)和RMQ(38%)的百分比变化评分的MCID具体保持不变,且在亚组中有所不同。
RMQ适用于测量仅患有LBP的患者的变化,ODI和RMQ均适用于伴有腿痛的患者,与患者入组点无关。MCID依赖于基线评分,但仅在某些亚组中如此。当患者量化重要改善时,使用ODI和RMQ测量的相对变化不受基线评分的影响。