Low Back Pain Rating scale: validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain

Manniche, Claus; Asmussen, Karsten; Lauritsen, Birgitte; Vinterberg, H; Kreiner, Svend; Jordan, Alan

doi:10.1016/0304-3959(94)90007-8

Cited by 256 publications

(194 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

186

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All patients first performed the 6MWT, then had a 15-min break, and then performed the AF-test. The patients also answered the following questionnaires: the Oswestery Disability Index (ODI) [20,21], the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) [22] and the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) [23]. All parameters were measured at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of timing of rehabilitation on physical performance after lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized clinical study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The number of patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion procedures (LSF) has risen in recent years, but only few studies have examined different rehabilitation strategies for this patient group. Purpose To evaluate the impact of initiating rehabilitation either 6 or 12 weeks after a LSF based on the patients' physical performance using the 6-min walking test (6MWT) and the Å strand Fitness test (AF-test) as measurement. Methods A multicentre RCT including 82 patients with degenerative disc diseases undergoing LSF randomly assigned to initiate rehabilitation either 6 or 12 weeks after surgery. Both groups received the same group-based rehabilitation. The main outcome measures were the 6MWT and the AF-test, secondarily questionnaire-based measures. Follow-up at baseline as well as at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery.Results Comparing the two groups no statistically significant difference was found in walking distance or fitness over time. In both groups, the patients achieved an overall increase in walking distance (p \ 0.01), but no improvement in fitness. The 6MWT showed significant correlation (-0.37 to -0.59) with the questionnaire-based outcome measures (p \ 0.01). The AF-test did not correlate to either the 6MWT or any of the questionnaire-based outcome measures. Conclusion No difference was found in the effect of initiating rehabilitation either 6 or 12 weeks after LSF on the patients' physical performance in terms of fitness and walking distance. The 6MWT showed fair to moderate correlation to the questionnaire-based outcome measures. The AF-test showed no significant independent value, and we question its use in LSF patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of timing of rehabilitation on physical performance after lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized clinical study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A high score in a category indicates that the patient's spine problems have a high impact on the patient in that category. LBPRS [21] is an index scale that includes measurement of pain intensity ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain). It includes three questions regarding low back pain and three questions regarding leg pain.…”

Section: Follow-up Questionnairesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion

Andersen

Christensen

Hansen

et al. 2003

European Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPosterolateral spinal fusion has become an evidence-based treatment of chronic low back pain caused by spondylolisthesis or spinal instability [12,26]. Although widely used, the beneficial effect on the clinical outcome of adding pedicle-screw fixation to the posterolateral spinal fusion has not yet been demonstrated [11,13,25,38]. All studies have shown reduction in pain and disability, but few have investigated the severity and localisation of residual pain several years after the procedure.Abstract Pain drawings have been used in spine surgery for diagnostic use and psychological evaluation of fusion candidates; they have rarely been used to evaluate pain status after spinal fusion. This study is a 5-year follow-up on a randomised clinical trial assigning patients to posterolateral spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Patients were mailed a pain drawing and questionnaires including questions regarding work, social status, smoking status, the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), and the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS). Pain drawings were scored using a visual inspection method and a surfacebased point scoring and evaluated for the presence of donor site pain. Pain drawings from 109 patients (87% of the initially included patients), 56 men and 53 women, mean age at followup 51 years, were analysed. Fiftythree patients had undergone an instrumented fusion and 56 a non-instrumented fusion. Some presence of low back pain was marked by 79% and leg pain by 69%. Sixty-two percent of the pain drawings were classified as "organic" and 38% as "nonorganic". There was no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group. DPQ and LBPRS scores were higher in the non-organic group (P=0.007). Using the point scoring, no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group was seen. The results of the point scoring were found to correlate with the DPQ and LBPRS scores (P=0.001). Working patients (39%) had significantly better scores than the rest. Ten percent of the patients had donor site pain. Twenty percent of spinal fusion patients are totally pain free at 5-year follow-up. Ten percent still experience donor site pain. In general, instrumentation does not affect the amount and localisation of pain 5 years after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The pain drawing seems to be a valuable tool when following spinal fusion patients, but its use as prognostic marker in connection with fusion surgery needs further investigation.

show abstract

“…The Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) [14] Questions The 21 questions are straightforward and simple. Low back pain explicitly is the central issue in 16 out of 21 questions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain

Müller

Roeder²,

Dubs³

et al. 2004

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn part I of the study, the nine most commonly used questionnaires specifically for low back pain were subjected to a complete validation process. The validation procedure examined reliability, responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference, external validity and floor and ceiling effects. This article will study a number of different aspects of questionnaire composition, content, and understandability. The first of these aspects is the relationship between the questionnaire and the modern concepts of disability, activity limitation, handicap and restrictions in society.The 1980 WHO International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH) [27] considered the manifestations of a disease in three domains: (1) impairment which is related to loss or abnormality of body structures or function (e.g. liver damage, knee damage, sensory impairment, pain [17]), (2) disability related to the individual (e.g. disabilities in activities of daily living, domestic tasks, communication) and (3) handicap related to society (e.g. employment, social integration, sport).Pathologies express their manifestations in all three ICIDH dimensions but (depending on the individuality of the patient) the values of the three dimensions are expressed individually. The values of each of the three dimensions are correlated (low or high correlation) but there is no causality between them. Thus some patients with slight impairments of body structures (e.g. minimal contusion in the low back) can present major disability and handicap after one year, and others with major impairment (e.g. severe lumbar fracture) can present only minor disability or handicap after three months. That is why each of the three dimensions must be assessed individually.Abstract A literature review of the most widely used, condition-specific, self-administered assessment questionnaires for low back pain has been undertaken. In part I, technical issues such as validity, reliability, availability and comparability were analyzed for the nine most widely used outcome tools. This second part focuses on the content and wording of questions and answers in each of the nine questionnaires, and an analysis of the different score results is performed. The issue of score bias is discussed and suggestions are given in order to increase the construct validity in the practical use of the individual questionnaires.

show abstract

Low Back Pain Rating scale: validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain

Cited by 256 publications

References 33 publications

The effect of timing of rehabilitation on physical performance after lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized clinical study

The effect of timing of rehabilitation on physical performance after lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized clinical study

Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion

Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About