Cargando…
Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness
BACKGROUND: Objectively measured reduction in lumbar posterior-to-anterior (PA) stiffness is associated with pain relief in some, but not all persons with low back pain. Unfortunately, these measurements can be time consuming to perform. In comparison, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSI...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727369/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33354411 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9598 |
_version_ | 1783621080532910080 |
---|---|
author | Nielsen, Jonas Glissmann Nim, Casper O’Neill, Søren Boyle, Eleanor Hartvigsen, Jan Kawchuk, Gregory N. |
author_facet | Nielsen, Jonas Glissmann Nim, Casper O’Neill, Søren Boyle, Eleanor Hartvigsen, Jan Kawchuk, Gregory N. |
author_sort | Nielsen, Jonas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Objectively measured reduction in lumbar posterior-to-anterior (PA) stiffness is associated with pain relief in some, but not all persons with low back pain. Unfortunately, these measurements can be time consuming to perform. In comparison, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is intended to measure spinal instability and the Lumbar Spine Disability Index (LSDI) is created for self-reporting functional disability due to increased spinal stiffness. Given the above, the aim of this study is to compare measures of the LSIQ and LSDI with objective measures of lumbar PA stiffness as measured by a mechanical device, Vertetrack (VT), in patients with persistent non-specific low back pain (nsLBP). METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with nsLBP completed the LSIQ and LSDI at baseline and after two weeks. On these same occasions, PA spinal stiffness was measured using the VT. Between measurements, patients received four sessions of spinal manipulation. The resulting data was analyzed to determine the correlation between the self-report and objective measures of stiffness at both time points. Further, the patients were categorized into responders and non-responders based on pre-established cut points depending on values from the VT and compared those to self-report measures in order to determine whether the LSIQ and the LSDI were sensitive to change. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants completed the study. Measures from the LSIQ and LSDI correlated poorly with objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness at baseline and also with the change scores. The change in objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness following spinal manipulation did not differ between those who improved, and those who did not improve according to the pre-specified cut-points. Finally, a reduction in lumbar PA stiffness following intervention was not associated with improvement in LSIQ and LSDI outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current data indicate that the LSIQ and LSDI questionnaires do not correlate with measures obtained objectively by VT. Our results suggest that these objective and self- reported measures represent different domains and as such, cannot stand in place of one another. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7727369 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77273692020-12-21 Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness Nielsen, Jonas Glissmann Nim, Casper O’Neill, Søren Boyle, Eleanor Hartvigsen, Jan Kawchuk, Gregory N. PeerJ Anatomy and Physiology BACKGROUND: Objectively measured reduction in lumbar posterior-to-anterior (PA) stiffness is associated with pain relief in some, but not all persons with low back pain. Unfortunately, these measurements can be time consuming to perform. In comparison, the Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is intended to measure spinal instability and the Lumbar Spine Disability Index (LSDI) is created for self-reporting functional disability due to increased spinal stiffness. Given the above, the aim of this study is to compare measures of the LSIQ and LSDI with objective measures of lumbar PA stiffness as measured by a mechanical device, Vertetrack (VT), in patients with persistent non-specific low back pain (nsLBP). METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with nsLBP completed the LSIQ and LSDI at baseline and after two weeks. On these same occasions, PA spinal stiffness was measured using the VT. Between measurements, patients received four sessions of spinal manipulation. The resulting data was analyzed to determine the correlation between the self-report and objective measures of stiffness at both time points. Further, the patients were categorized into responders and non-responders based on pre-established cut points depending on values from the VT and compared those to self-report measures in order to determine whether the LSIQ and the LSDI were sensitive to change. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants completed the study. Measures from the LSIQ and LSDI correlated poorly with objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness at baseline and also with the change scores. The change in objectively measured lumbar PA stiffness following spinal manipulation did not differ between those who improved, and those who did not improve according to the pre-specified cut-points. Finally, a reduction in lumbar PA stiffness following intervention was not associated with improvement in LSIQ and LSDI outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The current data indicate that the LSIQ and LSDI questionnaires do not correlate with measures obtained objectively by VT. Our results suggest that these objective and self- reported measures represent different domains and as such, cannot stand in place of one another. PeerJ Inc. 2020-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7727369/ /pubmed/33354411 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9598 Text en ©2020 Nielsen et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. |
spellingShingle | Anatomy and Physiology Nielsen, Jonas Glissmann Nim, Casper O’Neill, Søren Boyle, Eleanor Hartvigsen, Jan Kawchuk, Gregory N. Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness |
title | Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness |
title_full | Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness |
title_fullStr | Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness |
title_full_unstemmed | Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness |
title_short | Self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness |
title_sort | self-reports vs. physical measures of spinal stiffness |
topic | Anatomy and Physiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727369/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33354411 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9598 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nielsenjonas selfreportsvsphysicalmeasuresofspinalstiffness AT glissmannnimcasper selfreportsvsphysicalmeasuresofspinalstiffness AT oneillsøren selfreportsvsphysicalmeasuresofspinalstiffness AT boyleeleanor selfreportsvsphysicalmeasuresofspinalstiffness AT hartvigsenjan selfreportsvsphysicalmeasuresofspinalstiffness AT kawchukgregoryn selfreportsvsphysicalmeasuresofspinalstiffness |