Low Back Pain Rating scale: validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain

Pain ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Manniche ◽  
Karsten Asmussen ◽  
Birgitte Lauritsen ◽  
Henrik Vinterberg ◽  
Svend Kreiner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Scale Validation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Pain Rating ◽  
Pain Rating Scale

scholarly journals Responsiveness of pain, functional capacity tests, and disability level in individuals with chronic nonspecific low back pain

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (01) ◽  
pp. 11-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prasert Sakulsriprasert ◽  
Roongtiwa Vachalathiti ◽  
Pathaimas Kingcha
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Functional Capacity ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Pain Rating ◽  
Sit To Stand ◽  
Numeric Pain Rating Scale ◽  
Pain Rating Scale ◽  
Disability Level

Background: Clinical outcomes are very important in clinical assessment, and responsiveness is a component inside the outcome measures that needs to be investigated, particularly in chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP). Objective: This study aimed to investigate the responsiveness of pain, functional capacity tests, and disability in individuals with CNSLBP. Methods: Twenty subjects were assessed in pain using the following methods: visual analog scale (VAS) and numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), functional capacity tests: functional reach test (FRT), five-time sit-to-stand test (5 TSST), and two-minute step test (2 MST), and disability level: modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (MODQ), Thai version before and after 2-week intervention session. For interventions, the subjects received education, spinal manipulative therapy, and individual therapeutic exercise twice a week, for a total of two weeks. The statistics analyzed were change scores, effect size (ES), and standardized response mean (SRM). Results: The most responsive parameter for individuals with CNSLBP was pain as measured by numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) (ES [Formula: see text]0.986, SRM [Formula: see text]0.928) and five-time sit-to-stand test (5 TSST) (SRM [Formula: see text]0.846). Conclusion: This study found that NPRS pain and 5 TSST were responsive in individuals with CNSLBP at two weeks after the beginning of interventions.

Responsiveness of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale in Patients with Low Back Pain

Spine ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 1331-1334 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Childs ◽  
Sara R. Piva ◽  
Julie M. Fritz
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Pain Rating ◽  
Numeric Pain Rating Scale ◽  
Pain Rating Scale

scholarly journals A verbal descriptor incremental pain scale developed by South African Tswana-speaking patients with low back pain

2018 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Yazbek ◽  
Aimee V. Stewart ◽  
Alison Bentley
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
South African ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Home Language ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Pain Descriptor ◽  
Pain Rating Scale

Background: Measuring pain in patients whose home language is not English can be difficult as there may not be a scale available in their home language. Scales devised in other countries may also not be accurate after translation.Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop and test a new verbal pain descriptor scale in a Tswana-speaking population in South Africa with low back pain.Method: Two separate Tswana-speaking groups (20 males and 20 females) of patients with low back pain were asked to describe each of four categories of pain: mild, moderate, severe and worst. They then voted and descriptions obtaining more than 70% of the vote were taken to the next round of voting with both groups together. A final scale of one description for each category of pain (Tswana Verbal Pain Descriptor Scale – TVPDS) for both males and females was tested on a sample of 250 patients with low back pain and against three other non-verbal pain scales.Results: All items on the final scale were approved by at least 70% of both male and female participants. The scores for the TVPDS correlated well with present pain perception (r = 0.729, p < 0.0001) measured on the numerical visual analogue scale. The TVPDS correlated well with the Wong–Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (r = 0.695, p < 0.0001) and the Pakistani Coin Pain Scale (r = 0.717, p < 0.0001).Conclusion: The TVPDS has the potential to be a useful clinical scale but more testing in other languages is still required.Clinical implications: This pain scale has the potential to be a useful scale to use for Tswana-speaking persons with low back pain and could also be useful for persons of other languages, if translated.

scholarly journals Quantum Movement Technique versus William Flexion Exercise on Pain and Walking Ability in Patients with Low Back Pain

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (A) ◽  
pp. 323-325
Author(s):  
Djohan Aras ◽  
Nur Asmi ◽  
Yudi Hardianto ◽  
Rabia Rabia ◽  
Anwar Mallongi
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Walking Ability ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Numeric Pain Rating Scale ◽  
Pain Rating Scale

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to compare between quantum movement technique (QMT) and William flexion exercise (WFE) in patients with low back pain (LBP) based on pain and walking ability. METHODS: Six-session QMT and WFE were provided for two groups of participants. The frequency of intervention was 6 times/week. Twenty patients (aged 25–65 years) with LBP were randomly assigned into the QMT group (n = 10) or the WFE group (n = 10). The primary outcome of the intervention was pain, measured using the numeric pain rating scale, while the secondary outcome was walking ability, measured using the Oswestry Disability Index. The measurements were conducted at baseline and the end of the intervention. RESULTS: Pain reduction was significantly shown in both groups (p < 0.05). However, QMT was shown more effective in reducing pain compared to WFE (p < 0.05). In addition, we found the significant improvement of walking ability in both groups following the intervention (p < 0.05), but no significant difference was shown between two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: QMT is more effective than WFE for reducing pain in patients with LBP.

scholarly journals Adding Physical Impairment to Risk Stratification Improved Outcome Prediction in Low Back Pain

2020 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason M Beneciuk ◽  
Steven Z George
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Psychosocial Risk ◽  
Physical Impairment ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Pain Rating ◽  
Numerical Pain Rating Scale ◽  
Pain Rating Scale

Abstract Objective Identifying subgroups of low back pain (LBP) has the potential to improve prediction of clinical outcomes. Risk stratification is one such strategy that identifies similar characteristics indicative of a common clinical outcome trajectory. The purpose of this study was to determine if an empirically derived subgrouping approach based on physical impairment measures improves information provided from the STarT Back Tool (SBT). Methods At baseline in this secondary analysis of a cohort study, patients (N = 144) receiving physical therapy for LBP completed the SBT and tests (active lumbar flexion, extension, lateral bending, and passive straight-leg raise) from a validated physical impairment index. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 4 weeks and included the Numerical Pain Rating Scale and Oswestry Disability Index. Exploratory hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis identified empirically derived subgroups based on physical impairment measures. Independent samples t testing and chi-square analysis were used to assess baseline subgroup differences in demographic and clinical measures. Spearman rho correlation coefficient was used to assess baseline SBT risk and impairment subgroup relationships, and a 3-way mixed-model ANOVA was used to assessed SBT risk and impairment subgroup relationships with clinical outcomes at 4 weeks. Results Two physical impairment-based subgroups emerged from cluster analysis: (1) low-risk impairment (n = 119, 81.5%), characterized by greater lumbar mobility; and (2) high-risk impairment (n = 25, 17.1%), characterized by less lumbar mobility. A weak, positive relationship was observed between baseline SBT risk and impairment subgroups (rs = .170). An impairment-by-SBT risk-by-time interaction effect was observed for Oswestry Disability Index scores but not for Numerical Pain Rating Scale scores at 4 weeks. Conclusions Physical impairment subgroups were not redundant with SBT risk categories and could improve prediction of 4-week LBP disability outcomes. Physical impairment subgroups did not improve the prediction of 4-week pain intensity scores. Impact Subgroups based on physical impairment and psychosocial risk could lead to better prediction of LBP disability outcomes and eventually allow for treatment options tailored to physical and psychosocial risk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document