2020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9041197
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Personalized Treatment Suggestions: The Validity and Applicability of the Risk-Prevention-Index Social in Low Back Pain Exercise Treatments

Abstract: Background: The back pain screening tool Risk-Prevention-Index Social (RPI-S) identifies the individual psychosocial risk for low back pain chronification and supports the allocation of patients at risk in additional multidisciplinary treatments. The study objectives were to evaluate (1) the prognostic validity of the RPI-S for a 6-month time frame and (2) the clinical benefit of the RPI-S. Methods: In a multicenter single-blind 3-armed randomized controlled trial, n = 660 persons (age 18–65 years) were random… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Labor-related variables were employment status (“employer”, “self-employed”, “regular employee”, and “non-regular employee”) [ 22 ], income level (low: <4 million JPY; intermediate: 4–7 million JPY; high: >7 million JPY; and unknown or no answer) [ 20 ], and working time (<35, 35–39, 40–44, or >45 h/week) [ 23 ]. We adjusted for health-related status as follows: smoking status (never, former, and current), alcohol use (never, former, and current), and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, cancer, and psychiatric disorders) [ 24 , 25 , 26 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Labor-related variables were employment status (“employer”, “self-employed”, “regular employee”, and “non-regular employee”) [ 22 ], income level (low: <4 million JPY; intermediate: 4–7 million JPY; high: >7 million JPY; and unknown or no answer) [ 20 ], and working time (<35, 35–39, 40–44, or >45 h/week) [ 23 ]. We adjusted for health-related status as follows: smoking status (never, former, and current), alcohol use (never, former, and current), and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke, cancer, and psychiatric disorders) [ 24 , 25 , 26 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The psychometric diagnostic set reported a good accuracy in comparison to other psychometric stress screeners within the context of back pain [e.g., RPI-S domain stress with a RSME of 16.72 for CPI and of 16.20 for DISS ( 47 )]. Nevertheless, at the moment there were already diagnostic stress screeners with appropriate sensitivity and specify values and cut-off for treatment personalization ( 45 , 48 51 ); hence, the focus in this study was on the further development of the biomarker diagnostic set. The RMSE of the biomarker-set of only eight points already indicated a very good diagnostic accuracy with a very accurate clinical prediction sensitivity and specificity for pain intensity as well as disability (AUC 0.93 and 0.99, respectively); however, only few cases reported more than 30 points in the case of pain disability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sample size calculation of the MSB study was according to an unpublished dataset (a ≤ 0.05; 1-β = 0.999, drop out 30%, power analysis by G * Power,36 effect size f = 0.25, sample size: n = 600). The MSB study was registered as a clinical trial on 05/16/2013 in the German Clinical Trial Register with the identification number: DRKS00004977 ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00004977 ) ( 22 24 ). A subsample of MSB out of one study center (study center Potsdam) was used for the here presented pilot study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%