Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research Article

Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment

Authors: Robert Froud, David Ellard, Shilpa Patel, Sandra Eldridge, Martin Underwood

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The answers to patient reported outcome measures and global transition questions for back pain can be discordant. For example, the most commonly used outcome measure in back pain trials, the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), can show improvement even though participants say that their back pain is worse. This gives cause for concern as transition questions are used as anchors to estimate minimally important change (MIC) thresholds on patient reported outcome measures such as the RMDQ. We aimed to explore and compare what people with back pain think when they respond to a transition question and when they complete the RMDQ.

Methods

We purposively sampled people enrolled on a back pain randomised controlled trial who completed the RMDQ and two transition questions. One enquired about change in ability to perform tasks, the other about change in back pain. We sampled participants with discordance (in both directions), and participants with concordant scores. We explored participants’ thought processes using in-depth interviews.

Results

We completed 35 in-depth interviews. People with discordant RMDQ change and transition question responses attend to different factors when responding to transition questions compared to people with concordant scores. In particular, those for whom the RMDQ change indicated greater improvement than transition questions, prioritised their pain ahead of functional disability. When completing the RMDQ, participants’ thought processes were comparatively more objective, and specific to each statement.

Conclusion

Approaches to primary outcome assessment in back pain needs re-assessment. The RMDQ may be unsuitable for use as a primary outcome measure since patients may not attend to thinking about their back pain when completing it: patients’ abilities to cope with tasks can be independent of the change in their back pain. Some participants who improve on the RMDQ consider themselves globally worse. As transition questions can be driven by pain and other physical factors, transition questions should not be used to anchor minimally important change thresholds on the RMDQ.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Walker BF. The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998. J Spinal Disord. 2000; 13(3):205–17.CrossRefPubMed Walker BF. The prevalence of low back pain: a systematic review of the literature from 1966 to 1998. J Spinal Disord. 2000; 13(3):205–17.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
go back to reference Dunn KM, Croft PR. Epidemiology and natural history of low back pain. Europa Medicophysica. 2004; 40(1):9–13.PubMed Dunn KM, Croft PR. Epidemiology and natural history of low back pain. Europa Medicophysica. 2004; 40(1):9–13.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, Ezzati M, et al. Years lived with disability (ylds) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet. 2012; 380(9859):2163–96. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61729-2.CrossRefPubMed Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, Ezzati M, et al. Years lived with disability (ylds) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet. 2012; 380(9859):2163–96. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61729-2.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The cosmin checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19(4):539–49. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The cosmin checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010; 19(4):539–49. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Beurskens A, de Vet H, Koke A. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: A comparison of different instruments. Pain. 1996; 65:71–6.CrossRefPubMed Beurskens A, de Vet H, Koke A. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: A comparison of different instruments. Pain. 1996; 65:71–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference de Vet H, Terwee C, Mokkink L, Knol D. Measurement in medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRef de Vet H, Terwee C, Mokkink L, Knol D. Measurement in medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Froud R, Eldridge S, Lall R, Underwood M. Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the uk back pain exercise and manipulation (beam) trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009; 9:35. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Froud R, Eldridge S, Lall R, Underwood M. Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the uk back pain exercise and manipulation (beam) trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009; 9:35. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55(9):900–8.CrossRefPubMed Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002; 55(9):900–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Muller U, Duetz MS, Roeder C, Greenough CG. Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: Validation. Eur Spine J. 2004; 13(4):301–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Muller U, Duetz MS, Roeder C, Greenough CG. Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: Validation. Eur Spine J. 2004; 13(4):301–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Patel S, Ngunjiri A, Hee SW, Yang Y, Brown S, Friede T, et al. Primum non nocere: shared informed decision making in low back pain–a pilot cluster randomised trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014; 15:282. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-282.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Patel S, Ngunjiri A, Hee SW, Yang Y, Brown S, Friede T, et al. Primum non nocere: shared informed decision making in low back pain–a pilot cluster randomised trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014; 15:282. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-282.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Patel S, Brown S, Friede T, Griffiths F, Lord J, Ngunjiri A, et al. Study protocol: improving patient choice in treating low back pain (impact-lbp): a randomised controlled trial of a decision support package for use in physical therapy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12:52. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Patel S, Brown S, Friede T, Griffiths F, Lord J, Ngunjiri A, et al. Study protocol: improving patient choice in treating low back pain (impact-lbp): a randomised controlled trial of a decision support package for use in physical therapy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011; 12:52. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983; 8(2):141–4.CrossRefPubMed Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983; 8(2):141–4.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Ostelo R, Deyo R, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, von Korff M, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: Towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine. 2008; 33(1):90–4.CrossRefPubMed Ostelo R, Deyo R, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, von Korff M, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: Towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine. 2008; 33(1):90–4.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage Publications; 2003. Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage Publications; 2003.
16.
go back to reference Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, Andersson G, Borenstein D, Carragee E, et al. Report of the nih task force on research standards for chronic low back pain. J Pain. 2014; 15(6):569–85. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2014.03.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Deyo RA, Dworkin SF, Amtmann D, Andersson G, Borenstein D, Carragee E, et al. Report of the nih task force on research standards for chronic low back pain. J Pain. 2014; 15(6):569–85. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2014.03.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL, et al. The Quebec back pain disability scale. measurement properties. Spine. 1995; 20(3):341–52.CrossRefPubMed Kopec JA, Esdaile JM, Abrahamowicz M, Abenhaim L, Wood-Dauphinee S, Lamping DL, et al. The Quebec back pain disability scale. measurement properties. Spine. 1995; 20(3):341–52.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of low-back pain. part II: development of guidelines for trials of treatment in primary care. Spine. 1983; 8(2):145–50.CrossRefPubMed Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of low-back pain. part II: development of guidelines for trials of treatment in primary care. Spine. 1983; 8(2):145–50.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Muller U, Roder C, Greenough CG. Back related outcome assessment instruments. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15 Suppl 1:25–31.CrossRef Muller U, Roder C, Greenough CG. Back related outcome assessment instruments. Eur Spine J. 2006; 15 Suppl 1:25–31.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Hush JM, Refshauge KM, Sullivan G, De Souza L, McAuley JH. Do numerical rating scales and the roland-morris disability questionnaire capture changes that are meaningful to patients with persistent back pain?Clin Rehabil. 2010; 24(7):648–57. doi:10.1177/0269215510367975.CrossRefPubMed Hush JM, Refshauge KM, Sullivan G, De Souza L, McAuley JH. Do numerical rating scales and the roland-morris disability questionnaire capture changes that are meaningful to patients with persistent back pain?Clin Rehabil. 2010; 24(7):648–57. doi:10.1177/0269215510367975.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Hush JM, Kamper SJ, Stanton TR, Ostelo R, Refshauge KM. Standardized measurement of recovery from nonspecific back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93(5):849–55. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.11.035.CrossRefPubMed Hush JM, Kamper SJ, Stanton TR, Ostelo R, Refshauge KM. Standardized measurement of recovery from nonspecific back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93(5):849–55. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.11.035.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Kamper SJ, Stanton TR, Williams CM, Maher CG, Hush JM. How is recovery from low back pain measured? a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20(1):9–18. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1477-8.CrossRefPubMed Kamper SJ, Stanton TR, Williams CM, Maher CG, Hush JM. How is recovery from low back pain measured? a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20(1):9–18. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1477-8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Kamper S, Maher C, Makay G. Global rating of change scales: A review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Manual Manipulative Therapy. 2009; 17(3):163–70.CrossRef Kamper S, Maher C, Makay G. Global rating of change scales: A review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Manual Manipulative Therapy. 2009; 17(3):163–70.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Leng M, Russell IT, MacDonald LM. A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. the patient-generated index. Med Care. 1994; 32(11):1109–26.CrossRefPubMed Ruta DA, Garratt AM, Leng M, Russell IT, MacDonald LM. A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. the patient-generated index. Med Care. 1994; 32(11):1109–26.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Froud R, Eldridge S, Kovacs F, Breen A, Bolton J, Dunn K, et al. Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified delphi study. Eur J Pain. 2011; 15(10):1068–74. doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.04.015.CrossRefPubMed Froud R, Eldridge S, Kovacs F, Breen A, Bolton J, Dunn K, et al. Reporting outcomes of back pain trials: A modified delphi study. Eur J Pain. 2011; 15(10):1068–74. doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.04.015.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Froud R, Underwood M, Carnes D, Eldridge S. Clinicians’ perceptions of reporting methods for back pain trials: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2012; 62(596):151–159. doi:10.3399/bjgp12X630034.CrossRef Froud R, Underwood M, Carnes D, Eldridge S. Clinicians’ perceptions of reporting methods for back pain trials: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2012; 62(596):151–159. doi:10.3399/bjgp12X630034.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Rose G. Individuals and populations. In: The Strategy of Preventive Medicine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 1992. p. 1253–6374. Rose G. Individuals and populations. In: The Strategy of Preventive Medicine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 1992. p. 1253–6374.
28.
go back to reference Froud R, Underwood M, Eldridge S. Improving the reporting and interpretation of clinical trial outcomes. Br J Gen Pract. 2012; 62(603):729–31. doi:10.3399/bjgp12X657008.CrossRef Froud R, Underwood M, Eldridge S. Improving the reporting and interpretation of clinical trial outcomes. Br J Gen Pract. 2012; 62(603):729–31. doi:10.3399/bjgp12X657008.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Froud R, Patterson S, Eldridge S, Seale C, Pincus T, Rajendran D, et al. A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people’s lives. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014; 15:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Froud R, Patterson S, Eldridge S, Seale C, Pincus T, Rajendran D, et al. A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people’s lives. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014; 15:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Shrout P, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979; 86(2):420–8.CrossRefPubMed Shrout P, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979; 86(2):420–8.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference de Vet HC, Terwee C, Knol DL, Bouter L. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59:1033–9.CrossRefPubMed de Vet HC, Terwee C, Knol DL, Bouter L. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59:1033–9.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference de Vet H, Ostelo R, Terwee C, van der Roer N, Knol D, Beckerman H, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007; 16:131–42.CrossRefPubMed de Vet H, Ostelo R, Terwee C, van der Roer N, Knol D, Beckerman H, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res. 2007; 16:131–42.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Ostelo RW, de Vet H. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005; 19(4):593.CrossRefPubMed Ostelo RW, de Vet H. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005; 19(4):593.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000; 104(1):1–15.CrossRef Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000; 104(1):1–15.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Manniche C. Choice of external criteria in back pain research: Does it matter? recommendations based on analysis of responsiveness. Pain. 2007; 131(1-2):112–20.CrossRefPubMed Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Korsholm L, Grunnet-Nilsson N, Manniche C. Choice of external criteria in back pain research: Does it matter? recommendations based on analysis of responsiveness. Pain. 2007; 131(1-2):112–20.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Froud R, Abel G. Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally: The forgotten lesson of Pythagoras. Theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status. PLoS One. 2014; 9(12):114468. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114468.CrossRef Froud R, Abel G. Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally: The forgotten lesson of Pythagoras. Theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status. PLoS One. 2014; 9(12):114468. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114468.CrossRef
38.
39.
go back to reference Froud R. Improving interpretation of patient-reported outcomes in low back pain trials. PhD thesis, Queen Mary University of London, 2010. Froud R. Improving interpretation of patient-reported outcomes in low back pain trials. PhD thesis, Queen Mary University of London, 2010.
40.
go back to reference Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. a proposal for standardized use. Spine. 1998; 23(18):2003–13.CrossRefPubMed Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, Bombardier C, Croft P, Koes B, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. a proposal for standardized use. Spine. 1998; 23(18):2003–13.CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: Summary and general recommendations. Spine. 2000; 25(24):3100–3.CrossRefPubMed Bombardier C. Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: Summary and general recommendations. Spine. 2000; 25(24):3100–3.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment
Authors
Robert Froud
David Ellard
Shilpa Patel
Sandra Eldridge
Martin Underwood
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0534-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2015 Go to the issue