Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, London, UK.
Eur Spine J. 2010 Sep;19(9):1484-94. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1353-6. Epub 2010 Apr 17.
The purpose of this prospective, single site cohort quasi-experimental study was to determine the responsiveness of the numerical rating scale (NRS), Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), Oswestry disability index (ODI), pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ) and the patient-specific functional scale (PSFS) in order to determine which would best measure clinically meaningful change in a chronic low back pain (LBP) population. Several patient-based outcome instruments are currently used to measure treatment effect in the chronic LBP population. However, there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes a "successful" outcome, how an important improvement/deterioration has been defined and which outcome measure(s) best captures the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions for the chronic LBP population. Sixty-three consecutive patients with chronic LBP referred to a back exercise and education class participated in this study; 48 of the 63 patients had complete data. Five questionnaires were administered initially and after the 5-week back class intervention. Also at 5 weeks, patients completed a global impression of change as a reflection of meaningful change in patient status. Score changes in the five different questionnaires were subjected to both distribution- and anchor-based methods: standard error of measurement (SEM) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to define clinical improvement. From these methods, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) defined as the smallest difference that patients and clinicians perceive to be worthwhile is presented for each instrument. Based on the SEM, a point score change of 2.4 in the NRS, 5 in the RMDQ, 17 in the ODI, 11 on the PSEQ, and 1.4 on the PSFS corresponded to the MCID. Based on ROC curve analysis, a point score change of 4 points for both the NRS and RMDQ, 8 points for the ODI, 9 points for the PSEQ and 2 points for the PSFS corresponded to the MCID. The ROC analysis demonstrated that both the PSEQ and PSFS are responsive to clinically important change over time. The NRS was found to be least responsive. The exact value of the MCID is not a fixed value and is dependent on the assessment method used to calculate the score change. Based on ROC curve analysis the PSFS and PSEQ were more responsive than the other scales in measuring change in patients with chronic LBP following participation in a back class programme. However, due to the small sample size, the lack of observed worsening of symptoms over time, the single centre and intervention studied these results which need to be interpreted with caution.
本前瞻性、单站点队列准实验研究的目的是确定数字评定量表(NRS)、Roland-Morris 残疾问卷(RMDQ)、Oswestry 残疾指数(ODI)、疼痛自我效能问卷(PSEQ)和患者特定功能量表(PSFS)的反应能力,以确定哪种方法最能测量慢性下背痛(LBP)人群中的临床有意义的变化。目前有几种基于患者的结果评估工具用于测量慢性 LBP 人群的治疗效果。然而,对于什么构成“成功”的结果、如何定义重要的改善/恶化以及哪种结果评估(s)最能捕捉治疗干预对慢性 LBP 人群的有效性,尚未达成共识。63 名连续的慢性 LBP 患者被转诊到背部锻炼和教育班,其中 63 名患者中有 48 名完成了完整的数据。在最初和 5 周的背部课程干预后,患者完成了这五个问卷。同样在 5 周时,患者完成了对整体变化的印象,以反映患者状态的有意义变化。五个不同问卷的评分变化均采用分布和锚定方法进行评估:测量误差的标准误差(SEM)和接收器操作特征(ROC)曲线来定义临床改善。从这些方法中,以患者和临床医生认为有价值的最小差异(MCID)定义为每个工具的最小临床意义差异。基于 SEM,NRS 的评分变化 2.4 分、RMDQ 的评分变化 5 分、ODI 的评分变化 17 分、PSEQ 的评分变化 11 分和 PSFS 的评分变化 1.4 分,对应于 MCID。基于 ROC 曲线分析,NRS 和 RMDQ 的评分变化 4 分、ODI 的评分变化 8 分、PSEQ 的评分变化 9 分和 PSFS 的评分变化 2 分,对应于 MCID。ROC 分析表明,PSEQ 和 PSFS 都能随时间的推移对临床重要变化做出反应。NRS 的反应性最低。MCID 的精确值不是一个固定值,取决于用于计算评分变化的评估方法。基于 ROC 曲线分析,PSFS 和 PSEQ 在测量慢性 LBP 患者在参加背部课程计划后的变化方面比其他量表更具反应性。然而,由于样本量小、随时间观察到的症状恶化缺乏、单中心和干预研究,这些结果需要谨慎解释。