Responsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients with Low Back Pain

Childs, John D.; Piva, Sara R.; Fritz, Julie M.

doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29

Cited by 1,200 publications

(790 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

758

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The MCII was determined to be the magnitude of change associated with the upper-left corner of the curve, where both sensitivity and 1 minus specificity are maximized. 4 Area under the ROC curve (AUC) estimates and their associated 95% CIs were also provided. AUC can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen patient score showing major improvement will have a higher score than a randomly chosen patient score showing unimportant change.…”

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

“…The primary study parameter was pain reduction [NRS (Breivik et al., 2000; Grotle et al., 2004; Van der Roer et al., 2006; Farrar et al., 2001; Childs et al., 2005)]. The 0–10 verbal numeric rating scale (NRS‐11) is a tool that enjoys widespread clinical use due to its ease of administration.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomized sham‐controlled, double‐blind, multicenter clinical trial on the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency at the ramus communicans for lumbar disc pain

Tilburg

Stronks

Groeneweg

et al. 2016

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInvestigate the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency compared to a sham procedure, applied to the ramus communicans for treatment of lumbar disc pain.MethodsRandomized sham‐controlled, double‐blind, crossover, multicenter clinical trial. Multidisciplinary pain centres of two general hospitals. Sixty patients aged 18 or more with medical history and physical examination suggestive for lumbar disc pain and a reduction of two or more on a numerical rating scale (0–10) after a diagnostic ramus communicans test block. Treatment group: percutaneous radiofrequency treatment applied to the ramus communicans; sham: same procedure except radiofrequency treatment. Primary outcome measure: pain reduction. Secondary outcome measure: Global Perceived Effect.ResultsNo statistically significant difference in pain level over time between the groups, as well as in the group was found; however, the factor period yielded a statistically significant result. In the crossover group, 11 out of 16 patients experienced a reduction in NRS of 2 or more at 1 month (no significant deviation from chance). No statistically significant difference in satisfaction over time between the groups was found. The independent factors group and period also showed no statistically significant effects. The same applies to recovery: no statistically significant effects were found.ConclusionsThe null hypothesis of no difference in pain reduction and in Global Perceived Effect between the treatment and sham group cannot be rejected. Post hoc analysis revealed that none of the investigated parameters contributed to the prediction of a significant pain reduction.SignificanceInterrupting signalling through the ramus communicans may interfere with the transition of painful information from the discs to the central nervous system. Methodological differences exist in studies evaluating the efficacy of radiofrequency treatment for lumbar disc pain. A randomized, sham‐controlled, double‐blind, multicenter clinical trial on the effect of radiofrequency at the ramus communicans for lumbar disc pain was conducted. The null hypothesis of no difference in pain reduction and in Global Perceived Effect between the treatment and sham group cannot be rejected.

show abstract

“…Because of those findings, we can only speculate that the higher demand of analgesics in most of those patients might be due to a different reason than ongoing SIJ pain. The patient population in our study showed an average decrease on the VAS of 37 points 24 months after distraction arthrodesis of the SIJ was performed, reaching far beyond the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) [29,30]. Literature reports varying MCID values for the ODI [29,[31][32][33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Distraction arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint: 2-year results of a descriptive prospective multi-center cohort study in 171 patients

Fuchs¹,

Ruhl²

2017

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients with Low Back Pain

Abstract: Clinicians can be confident that a 2-point change on the NPRS represents clinically meaningful change that exceeds the bounds of measurement error.

Cited by 1,200 publications

References 30 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

Randomized sham‐controlled, double‐blind, multicenter clinical trial on the effect of percutaneous radiofrequency at the ramus communicans for lumbar disc pain

Distraction arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint: 2-year results of a descriptive prospective multi-center cohort study in 171 patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About