alexa Is a condition-specific instrument for patients with low back pain leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36.
Neurology

Neurology

Journal of Spine

Author(s): Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, Weinstein JN

Abstract Share this page

Abstract STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of longitudinal data collected prospectively from patients seen in 27 National Spine Network member centers across the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS scales, and all scales and summary scales of the MOS Short-Form 36 (SF-36) for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The responsiveness of general and condition-specific health status instruments is a key concept for clinicians and scientists. Various authors have explored responsiveness in common surveys used to assess spine patients. Although it is generally believed that condition-specific measures are more responsive to change in the condition under study, in the case of low back pain, most authors agree that further exploration is necessary. METHODS: Patients with diagnoses of herniated disc, spinal stenosis, and spondylosis from the National Spine Network database who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys were analyzed. Patient-provider consensus regarding improvement, worsening, or no change in the condition was selected as the external criterion. Responsiveness was evaluated using ROC curve analysis and effect size calculations. RESULTS: Nine hundred and seventy patients had complete data at baseline and 3 months. At follow-up, 68\% of the patients had consensus improvement. Based on ROC analysis, scales assessing pain were significantly more responsive than scales assessing function. There were no significant differences between the condition-specific scales and their equivalent general-health counterpart. The scales with the highest probabilities of correctly identifying patient's improvement were: the condition-specific pain scale from MODEMS (PAIN, ROC = 0.758); the combined pain and function scale from MODEMS (MPDL, ROC = 0.755); the general pain scale from the SF-36 (BP, ROC = 0.753); the combined pain and function scale from the SF-36 (PCS, ROC = 0.745); the condition-specific function measure from the Oswestry (ODI, ROC = 0.723); and the physical function measure from the SF-36 (PF, ROC = 0.721). A similar rank order was typically maintained with effect size calculations. Results were nearly identical in patients with multiple non-spine-related comorbidities and in patients with high degrees of perceived disability. The BP scale was most responsive to worsening of symptoms. CONCLUSION: For studies of patients with low back problems, the general SF-36 may be a sufficient measure of health status and patient function, without the need for additional condition-specific instruments. Pain scales appear to be the most responsive measures in patients with low back pain. This article was published in Spine (Phila Pa 1976) and referenced in Journal of Spine

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

  • 18th Global Neurologists Annual Meeting on Neurology and Neurosurgery
    Nov 13-15, 2017, Athens, Greece
  • 2nd International Conference on Pediatric Neurology  
    August 31-September 01, 2017 Prague, Czech Republic
  • 12th Global Neurologists Annual Meeting on Neurology and Neurosurgery
    November 16-18, 2017 Lisbon, Portugal

Relevant Topics

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords