Responsiveness of the Bournemouth and Oswestry questionnaires: A prospective pilot study

Perillo, Michael; Bulbulian, Ronald

doi:10.1067/mmt.2003.6

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several authors have used and identified scores of greater than +5 on the GRCS as reflective of care-terminating behavior; in other words, this value has been associated with change in care-seeking behavior in patients with low back pain. 24,31,40 We felt that targeting a score of greater than +5 on the GRCS would improve the likelihood that the anchor value would reflect tangible and marked improvements in the patient's condition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of 3 Methodological Approaches to Defining Major Clinically Important Improvement of 4 Performance Measures in Patients With Hip Osteoarthritis

Wright¹,

Cook²,

Baxter³

et al. 2011

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

322

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For rehabilitation professionals engaged in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), it is standard practice to perform objective assessments of physical function (using both physical performance and self-report measures) to obtain a picture of patient status. These assessments also serve as a baseline value for estimating changes (treatment effects) over time. While reliability and validity of some commonly used physical performance measures have been investigated in an OA population, most require further research regarding clinical utility and responsiveness. 14 Physical performance measures have often been criticized, as detailed testing of their measurement properties has not been extensively reported. 14,22,33 Measures of responsiveness have commonly been reported as statistically significant change scores, which are useful in establishing the threshold of change needed beyond measurement error. 10 Investigation of minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of physical performance measures is warranted, as these have become commonly used outcome measures in the treatment of OA. 8,12,17,[35][36][37] At present, the responsiveness (in terms of MCID) of the timed up-and-go (TUG) test, 40-meter self-paced walk test (40-m SPWT), 30-second chair stand (30 CST), and 20-cm step test has not been investigated in T T STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. T T OBJECTIVES:To establish the major clinically important improvement (MCII) of the timed upand-go test (TUG), 40-meter self-paced walk test (40-m SPWT), 30-second chair stand (30 CST), and a 20-cm step test in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing physiotherapy treatment. As a secondary aim, a comparison of methods was employed to evaluate the effect of method on the reported MCII. T T BACKGROUND: Minimal clinically importantdifference scores are commonly used by rehabilitation professionals to determine patient response following treatment. A gold standard for calculating MCII has yet to be determined, which has resulted in problems of interpretation due to varied results. T T METHODS:As part of a randomized controlled trial, 65 patients were randomized into a physiotherapy treatment group for hip OA, in which they completed 4 physical performance measures at baseline and 9 weeks. Upon completion of physiotherapy, patients assessed their response to treatment on a 15-point global rating of change scale (GRCS). MCII was estimated using 3 variations of an anchor-based method, based on the patient's opinion. T T RESULTS:A comparison of 3 methods resulted in the following change scores being best associated with our definition of MCII: a reduction equal to or greater than 0.8, 1.4, and 1.2 seconds for the TUG; an increase equal to or greater than 0.2, 0.3, and 0.2 m/s for the 40-m SPWT; an increase equal to or greater than 2.0, 2.6, and 2.1 repetitions for the 30 CST; an increase equal to or greater than 5.0, 12.8, and 16.4 steps for the 20-cm step test. T T CONCLUSION:The variation in methods provided very different results. This illustrates the impor...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of 3 Methodological Approaches to Defining Major Clinically Important Improvement of 4 Performance Measures in Patients With Hip Osteoarthritis

Wright¹,

Cook²,

Baxter³

et al. 2011

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

322

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Van 26,42 . It should be noted that arbitrary cut-offs are generally assigned for the purposes of research and have disadvantages for determining relevant change in the clinic.…”

Section: Clinimetric Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Rating of Change Scales: A Review of Strengths and Weaknesses and Considerations for Design

Kamper¹,

Maher²,

Mackay³

2009

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

1,060

858

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most clinicians ask their patients to rate whether their health condition has improved or deteriorated over time and then use this information to guide management decisions. Many studies also use patient-rated change as an outcome measure to determine the efficacy of a particular treatment. Global rating of change (GRC) scales provide a method of obtaining this information in a manner that is quick, flexible, and efficient. As with any outcome measure, however, meaningful interpretation of results can only be undertaken with due consideration of the clinimetric properties, strengths, and weaknesses of the instrument. The purpose of this article is to summarize this information to assist appropriate interpretation of the GRC results and to provide evidence-informed advice to guide design and administration of GRC scales. These considerations are relevant and applicable to the use of GRC scales both in the clinic and in research.

show abstract

“…28 Its most obvious departure from the original is in the omission of a question about the effects of LBP on the patient's sex life, but there were also some other changes in wording that may be confusing to some respondents. 28,29 However, the RODI has been used as a primary outcomes measure in other studies of LBP 30,31 and continues to be widely used in chiropractic practice. It might also be noted that a recent study found the RODI to be more responsive than the Bournemouth Questionnaire (but less responsive than the Numerical Rating Scale).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It might also be noted that a recent study found the RODI to be more responsive than the Bournemouth Questionnaire (but less responsive than the Numerical Rating Scale). 29 The QVAS and RODI are established outcome measure questionnaires, and therefore, an assumption of this present study is that the information derived from them is dependable. That is less certain for the categorization of patient symptom types, locations, and duration, which might be affected by the manner of questioning by the doctor and depends on the patients' answers to be accurate.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low Back Pain Response to Pelvic Tilt Position: An Observational Study of Chiropractic Patients

Minicozzi¹,

Russell

Ray

et al. 2016

Journal of Chiropractic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to look for differences between patients with an increased pain response as compared with those with a decreased pain response. Methods: Data were collected from consecutive new patients with lumbar or lumbopelvic pain in a chiropractic clinic. A pelvic tilt exercise was included in the initial examination, and pain response was noted. Analysis was made of pain and disability severity, as well as symptom location, chronicity, and other characteristics, before and after a course of chiropractic care. Results: Patients with an increased pain response to pelvic tilt (n = 12) had higher levels of pain and disability at baseline than patients without (n = 34). There were no between-group differences in other aspects of their complaints; in age, sex, or body mass; or in the types of care they received (eg, manipulation, stretching, exercise instruction). On the average, both groups of patients showed improvement with chiropractic care, and there was no detectable difference in improvement between groups. Conclusions: This study found that patients experiencing pain in response to a pelvic tilt maneuver may have a poorer precare status than patients with a decreased pain response.

show abstract

Responsiveness of the Bournemouth and Oswestry questionnaires: A prospective pilot study

Cited by 13 publications

References 23 publications

A Comparison of 3 Methodological Approaches to Defining Major Clinically Important Improvement of 4 Performance Measures in Patients With Hip Osteoarthritis

A Comparison of 3 Methodological Approaches to Defining Major Clinically Important Improvement of 4 Performance Measures in Patients With Hip Osteoarthritis

Global Rating of Change Scales: A Review of Strengths and Weaknesses and Considerations for Design

Low Back Pain Response to Pelvic Tilt Position: An Observational Study of Chiropractic Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About