Suppr超能文献

对于慢性下腰痛,我们能否在残疾结局测量指标之间进行转换?

Can we convert between outcome measures of disability for chronic low back pain?

作者信息

Morris Tom, Hee Siew Wan, Stallard Nigel, Underwood Martin, Patel Shilpa

机构信息

*Leicester Clinical Trials Unit, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom; and †Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 May 15;40(10):734-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000866.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database analysis.

OBJECTIVE

A range of patient-reported outcomes were used to measure disability due to low back pain. There is not a single back pain disability measurement commonly used in all randomized controlled trials. We report here our assessment as to whether different disability measures are sufficiently comparable to allow data pooling across trials.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

We used individual patient data from a repository of data from back pain trials of therapist-delivered interventions.

METHODS

We used data from 11 trials (n=6089 patients) that had at least 2 of the following 7 measurements: Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Chronic Pain Grade disability score, Physical Component Summary of the 12- or 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Patient Specific Functional Scale, Pain Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, and Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire. Within each trial, the change score between baseline and short-term follow-up was computed for each outcome and this was used to calculate the correlation between the change scores and the Cohen's κ for the 3-level outcome of change score of less than, equal to, and more than zero. It was considered feasible to pool 2 measures if they were at least moderately correlated (correlation>0.5) and have at least moderately similar responsiveness (κ>0.4).

RESULTS

Although all pairs of measures were found to be positively correlated, most correlations were less than 0.5, with only 1 pair of outcomes in 1 trial having a correlation of more than 0.6. All κ statistics were less than 0.4 so that in no cases were the criteria for acceptability of pooling measures satisfied.

CONCLUSION

The lack of agreement between different outcome measures means that pooling of data on these different disability measurements in a meta-analysis is not recommended.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

摘要

研究设计

回顾性数据库分析。

目的

采用一系列患者报告的结局指标来衡量腰痛导致的残疾情况。在所有随机对照试验中,尚无一种普遍使用的腰痛残疾测量方法。我们在此报告对于不同残疾测量指标是否具有足够可比性以允许跨试验合并数据的评估。

背景数据总结

我们使用了来自治疗师提供干预的腰痛试验数据存储库中的个体患者数据。

方法

我们使用了11项试验(n = 6089例患者)的数据,这些试验至少有以下7种测量方法中的2种:罗兰·莫里斯残疾问卷、慢性疼痛分级残疾评分、12项或36项简短健康调查问卷的身体成分总结、患者特定功能量表、疼痛残疾指数、奥斯威斯残疾指数和汉诺威功能能力问卷。在每项试验中,计算每个结局指标在基线和短期随访之间的变化分数,并用于计算变化分数与变化分数小于、等于和大于零的三级结局的科恩κ系数之间的相关性。如果两种测量方法至少具有中度相关性(相关性>0.5)且具有至少中度相似的反应性(κ>0.4),则认为合并这两种测量方法是可行的。

结果

尽管发现所有测量指标对均呈正相关,但大多数相关性小于0.5,只有1项试验中的1对结局指标相关性大于0.6。所有κ统计量均小于0.4,因此在任何情况下均未满足合并测量指标可接受性的标准。

结论

不同结局指标之间缺乏一致性意味着不建议在荟萃分析中合并这些不同残疾测量方法的数据。

证据水平

2级。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7023/4504533/d9c535e86d35/spne-40-734-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验