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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nielsen, Jonas, Glissmann Nim, Casper, O’Neill, Søren, Boyle, Eleanor, Hartvigsen, Jan, Kawchuk, Gregory N.
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