Assessing the Significance of Individual Change in 2 Samples of Patients in Treatment for Low Back Pain Using 5 Different Statistical Indicators.
Assessing the Significance of Individual Change in 2 Samples of Patients in Treatment for Low Back Pain Using 5 Different Statistical Indicators.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jmpt.2022.03.002
复制
发表时间：
2021-11
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Herman, Patricia M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hays, Ron D.;Slaughter, Mary E.;Spritzer, Karen L.;Herman, Patricia M.
本研究的目的是在两个接受腰痛治疗的患者样本中使用5个统计指标来估计个体变化的显著性。该次要分析使用了来自2个腰痛患者样本的观察和临床试验数据，比较了在2个时间点评估影响分层评分（ISS）显著个体变化的5种方法：1）在一项对1，680名接受脊椎按摩治疗的患者进行的观察性研究中，间隔3个月; 2）在一项随机试验中，750名患有腰痛的现役军人间隔6周。比较的5种方法是：1）标准差指数; 2）测量标准误差（SEM）; 3）估计标准误差（SEE）; 4）预测标准误差（SEP）;和5）可靠变化指数（RCI）。ISS是PROMIS-29 v2.1身体功能、疼痛干扰和疼痛强度评分的总和，评分范围为8（影响最小）至50（影响最大）。对于SEM和SEE，两个样本中显著个体变化所需的ISS变化量为5，对于SEP和RCI为7。SEP和RCI对显著变化的估计与先前研究中至少适度改善的回顾性变化评级一致。与其他方法相比，这两种方法不太可能将人们归类为实际上没有好转的反应者（假阳性）。相比之下，SEM和SEE不太可能错过真实的变化（假阴性）。
The purpose of this study was to estimate the significance of individual change using 5 statistical indicators in two samples of patients treated for low back pain. This secondary analysis used observational and clinical trial data from 2 samples of patients with low back pain to compare 5 ways of estimating significant individual change on the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) administered at 2 timepoints: 1) 3 months apart in an observational study of 1,680 patients undergoing chiropractic care; and 2) 6 weeks apart in a randomized trial of 750 active-duty military personnel with low back pain. The 5 methods compared were: 1) standard deviation index; 2) standard error of measurement (SEM); 3) standard error of estimate (SEE); 4) standard error of prediction (SEP); and 5) the reliable change index (RCI). The ISS is the sum of the PROMIS-29 v2.1 physical function, pain interference and pain intensity scores and is scored to have a possible range of 8 (least impact) to 50 (greatest impact). The amount of change on the ISS needed for significant individual change in both samples was 5 for the SEM and for the SEE, and 7 for the SEP and RCI. The SEP and RCI estimates of significant change were consistent with retrospective ratings of change of at least moderately better in prior research. These 2 were less likely than other methods to classify people as responders who have not actually gotten better (false positive). In contrast, the SEM and SEE were less likely to miss real change (false negative).
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3
作者：
Hays RD;Spritzer KL;Reise SP
通讯作者：
Reise SP
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Froud R;Abel G
通讯作者：
Abel G
影响因子：
16.4
作者：
Borckardt, Jeffrey J.;Nash, Michael R.;O'Neil, Patrick
通讯作者：
O'Neil, Patrick
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Donaldson, Gary
通讯作者：
Donaldson, Gary
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
JACOBSON, NS;TRUAX, P
通讯作者：
TRUAX, P