Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Froud, Robert, Ellard, David, Patel, Shilpa, Eldridge, Sandra, Underwood, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4419506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25887581
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0534-1
_version_ 1782369589105000448
author Froud, Robert
Ellard, David
Patel, Shilpa
Eldridge, Sandra
Underwood, Martin
author_facet Froud, Robert
Ellard, David
Patel, Shilpa
Eldridge, Sandra
Underwood, Martin
author_sort Froud, Robert
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0534-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4419506
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44195062015-05-06 Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment Froud, Robert Ellard, David Patel, Shilpa Eldridge, Sandra Underwood, Martin BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0534-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4419506/ /pubmed/25887581 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0534-1 Text en © Froud et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Froud, Robert
Ellard, David
Patel, Shilpa
Eldridge, Sandra
Underwood, Martin
Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment
title Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment
title_full Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment
title_fullStr Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment
title_full_unstemmed Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment
title_short Primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment
title_sort primary outcome measure use in back pain trials may need radical reassessment
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4419506/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25887581
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0534-1
work_keys_str_mv AT froudrobert primaryoutcomemeasureuseinbackpaintrialsmayneedradicalreassessment
AT ellarddavid primaryoutcomemeasureuseinbackpaintrialsmayneedradicalreassessment
AT patelshilpa primaryoutcomemeasureuseinbackpaintrialsmayneedradicalreassessment
AT eldridgesandra primaryoutcomemeasureuseinbackpaintrialsmayneedradicalreassessment
AT underwoodmartin primaryoutcomemeasureuseinbackpaintrialsmayneedradicalreassessment