| Title |
How little pain and disability do patients with low back pain have to experience to feel that they have recovered?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, March 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-010-1366-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steven J. Kamper, Christopher G. Maher, Robert D. Herbert, Mark J. Hancock, Julia M. Hush, Robert J. Smeets |
| Abstract |
Epidemiological and clinical studies of people with low back pain (LBP) commonly measure the incidence of recovery. The pain numerical rating scale (NRS), scores from 0 to 10, and Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), scores from 0 to 24, are two instruments often used to define recovery. On both scales higher scores indicate greater severity. There is no consensus, however, on the cutoff scores on these scales that classify people as having recovered. The aim of this study was to determine which cutoff scores most accurately classify those who had recovered from LBP. Subjects from four clinical studies were categorized as 'recovered' or 'unrecovered' according to their self-rating on a global perceived effect scale. Odd ratios were calculated for scores of 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the NRS and RMDQ to predict perceived recovery. Scores of 0 on the NRS and <or=2 on the RMDQ most accurately identify patients who consider themselves completely recovered. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) for predicting recovery was 43.9 for a score of 0 on the NRS and 17.6 for a score of <or=2 on the RMDQ. There was no apparent effect of LBP duration or length of follow-up period on the optimal cutoff score. OR for the NRS were generally higher than those for RMDQ. Cutoffs of 0 on the NRS and 2 on the RMDQ most accurately classify subjects as recovered from LBP. Subjects consider pain more than disability when determining their recovery status. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 94 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 15% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 26% |
| Unknown | 16 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 15% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2010.
All research outputs
#15,240,835
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,008
of 4,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,546
of 93,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#23
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,593 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 93,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.