Interpreting Change Scores for Pain and Functional Status in Low Back Pain: Towards International Consensus Regarding Minimal Important Change

Study Design. Literature review, expert panel, and a workshop during the “VIII International Forum on Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain” (Amsterdam, June 2006). Objective. To develop practical guidance regarding the minimal important change (MIC) on frequently used measures of pain and functional status for low back pain. Summary of Background Data. Empirical studies have tried to determine meaningful changes for back pain, using different methodologies. This has led to confusion about what change is clinically important for commonly used back pain outcome measures. Methods. This study covered the Visual Analogue Scale (0–100) and the Numerical Rating Scale (0–10) for pain and for function, the Roland Disability Questionnaire (0–24), the Oswestry Disability Index (0–100), and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (0–100). The literature was reviewed for empirical evidence. Additionally, experts and participants of the VIII International Forum on Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain were consulted to develop international consensus on clinical interpretation. Results. There was wide variation in study design and the methods used to estimate MICs, and in values found for MIC, where MIC is the improvement in clinical status of an individual patient. However, after discussion among experts and workshop participants a reasonable consensus was achieved. Proposed MIC values are: 15 for the Visual Analogue Scale, 2 for the Numerical Rating Scale, 5 for the Roland Disability Questionnaire, 10 for the Oswestry Disability Index, and 20 for the QBDQ. When the baseline score is taken into account, a 30% improvement was considered a useful threshold for identifying clinically meaningful improvement on each of these measures. Conclusion. For a range of commonly used back pain outcome measures, a 30% change from baseline may be considered clinically meaningful improvement when comparing before and after measures for individual patients. It is hoped that these proposals facilitate the use of these measures in clinical practice and the comparability of future studies. The proposed MIC values are not the final answer but offer a common starting point for future research.

[1]  Jennifer L Keating,et al.  A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: reliability and responsiveness. , 2002, Physical therapy.

[2]  A. Nordwall,et al.  The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain , 2003, European Spine Journal.

[3]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials , 1998, BMJ.

[4]  J. Wright,et al.  The minimal important difference: who's to say what is important? , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. , 1998, Physical therapy.

[6]  P. Stratford,et al.  Measurement Properties of the RM‐18: A Modified Version of the Roland‐Morris Disability Scale , 1997, Spine.

[7]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. , 1994, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  K. Jordan,et al.  A minimal clinically important difference was derived for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for low back pain. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  Re: Grotle M, Brox JI, Vøllestad NK. Concurrent comparison of responsiveness in pain and functional status measures used for patients with low back pain. Spine 2004;29:E492-E501. , 2005, Spine.

[10]  P. Lindberg,et al.  Subacute and chronic low back pain. Reliability and validity of a Swedish version of the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire. , 1998, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[11]  M. Jensen,et al.  Assessing Global Pain Severity by Self-Report in Clinical and Health Services Research , 2000, Spine.

[12]  Ross D Crosby,et al.  Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. , 2003, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  P. Stratford,et al.  Defining the minimum level of detectable change for the Roland-Morris questionnaire. , 1996, Physical therapy.

[14]  R. Deyo.  Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. , 1988, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[15]  U. S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Cen Research,et al.  Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance , 2006, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[16]  A comparison study of the back pain functional scale and Roland Morris Questionnaire. North American Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Research Network. , 2000, The Journal of rheumatology.

[17]  H C de Vet,et al.  Measuring the Functional Status of Patients With Low Back Pain: Assessment of the Quality of Four Disease-Specific Questionnaires , 1995, Spine.

[18]  G. Ebenbichler,et al.  Cross-cultural adaptation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire for German-speaking patients with low back pain. , 1999, Spine.

[19]  M. Ferraz,et al.  Translation, adaptation and validation of the Roland-Morris questionnaire--Brazil Roland-Morris. , 2001, Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas.

[20]  M. Roland,et al.  The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire. , 2000, Spine.

[21]  M. Roland,et al.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. , 1983, Spine.

[22]  J. Farrar,et al.  Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale , 2001, PAIN.

[23]  A. Garratt,et al.  Responsiveness of Generic and Specific Measures of Health Outcome in Low Back Pain , 2001, Spine.

[24]  P. Stratford,et al.  The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale: measurement properties. , 1995, Spine.

[25]  Henrica C W de Vet,et al.  Minimal Clinically Important Change for Pain Intensity, Functional Status, and General Health Status in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain , 2006, Spine.

[26]  P. Stratford,et al.  Development and Initial Validation of the Back Pain Functional Scale , 2000, Spine.

[27]  John D. Childs,et al.  Responsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients with Low Back Pain , 2005, Spine.

[28]  N. Vøllestad,et al.  Concurrent Comparison of Responsiveness in Pain and Functional Status Measurements Used for Patients With Low Back Pain , 2004, Spine.

[29]  P. Stratford,et al.  Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 2. , 1998, Physical therapy.

[30]  J C Fairbank,et al.  The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. , 1980, Physiotherapy.

[31]  C. Bombardier,et al.  Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. , 2000, Spine.

[32]  R A Deyo,et al.  Outcome Measures for Low Back Pain Research: A Proposal for Standardized Use , 1998, Spine.