1. Responsiveness to change of 10 physical tests used for patients with back pain
- Author
-
Liv Inger Strand, Hildegunn Lygren, Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo, Jan Sture Skouen, Bodil Anderson, Liv Heide Magnussen, Epidemiology and Data Science, Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, and EMGO+ - Musculoskeletal Health
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Adolescent ,Lateral flexion ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation ,Cohort Studies ,Young Adult ,Physical medicine and rehabilitation ,Predictive Value of Tests ,Outcome Assessment, Health Care ,medicine ,Back pain ,Humans ,Functional ability ,Prospective cohort study ,Aged ,Pain Measurement ,Rehabilitation ,business.industry ,Reproducibility of Results ,Small sample ,Recovery of Function ,Middle Aged ,Spondylometry ,Walk test ,Back Pain ,Physical therapy ,Exercise Test ,Female ,Self Report ,medicine.symptom ,business - Abstract
Background. Few studies have examined the responsiveness of physical tests. Objective. The purpose of this study was to explore the responsiveness of 10 physical tests used for patients with back pain in order to illuminate the significance of changes in scores. Design. Cross-sectional and longitudinal designs within a prospective cohort study were applied. Methods. Distribution-based and anchor-based methods were used. Ninety-eight patients (18-65 years of age) with long-lasting back pain were recruited consecutively at an outpatient spine clinic. Measurements. The participants were assessed using 10 physical tests and 2 questionnaires (Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) at inclusion and after rehabilitation. Six predefined hypotheses for each test were examined regarding the association between changes in scores on the physical tests and the self-report measures of functioning and regarding the relationship of changes in scores on the physical tests and external anchors of important change. Results. Five physical tests demonstrated responsiveness by both distributionbased and anchor-based methods: spondylometry, lateral flexion test, fingertip-tofloor test, lift test, and Back Performance Scale (4 hypotheses confirmed). The minimal important change values were all within the range of the smallest detectable change for individual patients. Responsiveness by distribution-based methods only (3 hypotheses confirmed) was shown for the Biering-Sørensen test and the loaded reach test, whereas little evidence of responsiveness (1 hypothesis confirmed) was shown for the Global Physiotherapy Examination flexibility subscale, the Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation, and the 15-m (50-ft) walk test. Limitations. The smallest detectable change values were examined in a small sample of patients and need further exploration. Conclusions. Responsiveness varied among the 10 physical tests.
- Published
- 2011
- Full Text
- View/download PDF