How much does the Dallas Pain Questionnaire score have to improve to indicate that patients with chronic low back pain feel better or well?
; ; et al
in European Spine Journal (2016), 25
Purpose: The Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) assesses the impact of low back pain (LBP) on four components (0–100) of daily life. We estimated the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and the ... [more ▼]
Purpose: The Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) assesses the impact of low back pain (LBP) on four components (0–100) of daily life. We estimated the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) values of DPQ in LBP patients. Methods: 142 patients with LBP lasting for at least 4 weeks completed a battery of questionnaires at baseline and 6 months later. Questions for MCII addressed patientreported response to treatment at 6 months on a five-point Likert scale, while a yes/no question concerning satisfaction with present state was used to determine PASS. MCII wascomputed as the difference in mean DPQ scores between patients reporting treatment as effective vs. patients reporting treatment as not effective, and PASS was computed as the third quartile of the DPQ score among patients who reported being satisfied with their present state. Results: MCII values were 22, 23, 2 and 10 for daily activities, work and leisure, social interest, and anxiety/depression, respectively. PASS values were 29, 23, 20 and 21 for the four components, respectively. The PASS total score threshold of 24 correctly classified 84.1 % of the patients who reported being unsatisfied with their present state, and 74.7 % of patients reported being satisfied. Conclusions: These values give information of paramount importance for clinicians in interpreting change in DPQ values over time. Authors should be encouraged to report the percentage of patients who reach MCII and PASS values in randomized clinical trials and cohort studies to help clinicians to interpret clinical results. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 10 (3 ULg)
Core Outcome Measure Index for low back patients: do we miss anxiety and depression?
; ; et al
in European Spine Journal (2016), 25Detailed reference viewed: 12 (2 ULg)
Validity of the French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index for low back pain patients: a prospective cohort study
; ; et al
in European Spine Journal (2014), 23Detailed reference viewed: 14 (1 ULg)
Effectiveness of preventive back educational interventions for low back pain: a critical review of randomized controlled clinical trials
Demoulin, Christophe ; ; et al
in European Spine Journal (2012), 21Detailed reference viewed: 18 (1 ULg)
Study of the information delivery by general practitioners and rheumatologists to patients with acute low back pain.
Henrotin, Yves ; ; et al
in European Spine Journal (2011), 20(5), 720-30
Providing information to patients regarding appropriate management of LBP is a crucial component of primary care and treatment of low back pain (LBP). Limited knowledge is available, however, about the ... [more ▼]
Providing information to patients regarding appropriate management of LBP is a crucial component of primary care and treatment of low back pain (LBP). Limited knowledge is available, however, about the information delivered by physicians to patients with low back pain. Hence, this study aimed at evaluating (1) the self-reported practices of French physicians concerning information about patients with acute LBP (2) the consistency of these practices with the COST B13 guidelines, and (3) the effects of the delivery of a leaflet summarizing the COST B13 recommendations on the management of patient information, using the following study design: 528 French physicians [319 general practitioners (GP) and 209 rheumatologists (RH)] were asked to provide demographic information, responses to a Fear Avoidance Beliefs questionnaire adapted for physicians and responses to a questionnaire investigating the consistency of their practice with the COST B13 guidelines. Half of the participants (163 GP and 105 RH) were randomized to receive a summary of the COST B13 guidelines concerning information delivery to patient with low back pain and half (156 GP and 104 RH) were not given this information. The mean age of physicians was 52.1 +/- 7.6 years, 25.2% were females, 75% work in private practice, 63.1% reported to treat 10-50 patients with LBP per month and 18.2% <10 per month. The majority of the physicians (71.0%) reported personal LBP episode (7.1% with a duration superior to 3 months). Among the 18.4% (97) of the physicians that knew the COST B13 guidelines, 85.6% (83/97) reported that they totally or partially applied these recommendations in their practice. The average work (0-24) and physical activity (0-24) FABQ scores were 21.2 +/- 8.4 and 10.1 +/- 6.0, respectively. The consistency scores (11 questions scored 0 to 6, total score was standardized from 0 to 100) were significantly higher in the RH group (75.6 +/- 11.6) than in GP group (67.2 +/- 12.6; p < 0.001). The delivery of a summary of the COST B13 guidelines significantly improved the consistency score (p = 0.018). However, a multivariate analysis indicated that only GP consistency was improved by recommendations' delivery.The results indicated that GP were less consistent with the European COST B13 guidelines on the information of patients with acute LBP than RH. Interestingly, delivery of a summary of these guidelines to GP improved their consistency score, but not that of the RH. This suggests that GP information campaign can modify the message that they deliver to LBP, and subsequently could change patient's beliefs on LBP. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 17 (4 ULg)
Comment on: Long term actuarial survivorship analysis of an interspinous stabilization system (J Senegas et al.)
in European Spine Journal (2007), 16(8), 1289-1290Detailed reference viewed: 27 (3 ULg)
Chapter 2. European guidelines for prevention in low back pain : November 2004.
; ; et al
in European Spine Journal (2006), 15 Suppl 2Detailed reference viewed: 17 (3 ULg)