Classifying patients with non-specific chronic low back pain using the impact stratification score in an online convenience sample.
Classifying patients with non-specific chronic low back pain using the impact stratification score in an online convenience sample.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12891-023-06848-2
复制
发表时间：
2023-09-09
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Hays, Ron D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rodriguez, Anthony;Herman, Patricia M.;Slaughter, Mary E.;Edelen, Maria Orlando;Hays, Ron D.
关键词：
2014年，美国国家健康疼痛研究所联盟的慢性下腰痛(CLBP)研究标准研究工作组(RTF)提出了影响分层评分(ISS)作为患者报告的结果衡量标准，可以根据CLBP对患者生活的影响对患者进行分层。这项工作将三个新开发的基于ISS的分类与RTF的原始分类进行比较，以提供最佳建议。在线样本包括1226名来自亚马逊的机械土耳其人，他们表示患有非特异性CLBP，平均年龄40岁，49%是女性，67%是白人。参与者完成了PROMIS-29 v2.1个人资料调查，其中包括9个ISS项目以及罗兰-莫里斯残疾问卷(RMDQ)和分级慢性疼痛量表(GCPS)。其他项目包括高影响的慢性疼痛；由于健康问题而不工作；总体健康；以及在过去6个月内因背部疼痛而就诊的次数。使用四分位数(分类2)、潜伏期分析(分类3)创建了三个新的分类，并仿照GCPS创建了一个分类(分类4)。随后将分类与RTF建议的分类(分类1)在几个并发和预后标准上进行比较。分类1有三个CLBP严重程度组，四个在分类2，三个在分类3，四个在分类4。所有新的分类都在原有分类的基础上进行了改进。分类2在将结果为阴性的患者在基线(例如，RMDQ ≥ 7的11%)和6个月(例如，8.2%的健康状况一般/较差)的严重程度最低组的分类方面表现得最好。分类4在最大限度地将结果为阴性的患者同时归入最严重组(例如，GCPS2级)和6个月时(例如， ≥ ≥ 7级，100%)方面表现最好。我们开发了三个基于ISS的分类方案，并针对几个结果进行了测试。这三个方案都在原始方案的基础上进行了改进。尽管在严重程度最低的组中，分类2比其他分类更理想，但分类2提出了一些考虑因素和局限性。鉴于4级在严重程度的最低端是一种改进，在最高端是最好的，我们初步建议采用这种方法来对患有非特异性CLBP的个体进行分类。网上版载有补充材料，可在10.1186/s12891-023-06848-2查阅。
In 2014, the National Institute of Health Pain Consortium’s research task force (RTF) on research standards for chronic low back pain (CLBP) proposed the Impact Stratification Score (ISS) as a patient-reported outcome measure that could stratify patients by the impact CLBP has on their lives. This work compares three newly developed ISS-based classifications to the RTF’s original to provide an optimal recommendation. The online sample included 1226 individuals from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk who indicated having non-specific CLBP, average age of 40, 49% female, and 67% White. Participants completed the PROMIS-29 v2.1 profile survey that contains the 9 ISS items as well the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS). Other items included high-impact chronic pain; not working due to health problems; overall health; and number of healthcare visits for back pain in the past 6 months. Three new classifications were created using quartiles (Classification 2), latent profile analysis (Classification 3), and one modeled after the GCPS (Classification 4). Classifications were subsequently compared to the RTF-proposed classification (Classification 1) on several concurrent and prognostic criteria. Classification 1 had three CLBP severity groups, four in Classification 2, three in Classification 3, and four in Classification 4. All novel classifications improved upon the original. Classification 2 performed best at minimizing the classification of those with negative outcomes into the lowest severity groups at baseline (e.g., 11% with RMDQ ≥ 7) and 6 months (e.g., 8.2% had fair/poor health). Classification 4 performed best at maximizing classification of those with negative outcomes into the most severe group concurrently (e.g., 100% had GCPS grade ≥ 2) and at 6 months (e.g., 100% with RMDQ ≥ 7). We developed three ISS-based classification schemes and tested them against several outcomes. All three improved upon the original scheme. While appearing more optimal than other classifications in the lowest severity groups, Classification 2 presents some considerations and limitations. Given that Classification 4 was an improvement at the lowest end of severity and was the best at the highest end, it is our tentative recommendation that this approach be adopted to classify individuals with non-specific CLBP. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-023-06848-2.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.e5595
发表时间：
2013-02-05
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Hemingway H;Croft P;Perel P;Hayden JA;Abrams K;Timmis A;Briggs A;Udumyan R;Moons KG;Steyerberg EW;Roberts I;Schroter S;Altman DG;Riley RD;PROGRESS Group
通讯作者：
PROGRESS Group
影响因子：
3
作者：
Fairbank, Jeremy;Gwilym, Stephen E.;Andersson, Gunnar
通讯作者：
Andersson, Gunnar
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Von Korff, M;Miglioretti, DL
通讯作者：
Miglioretti, DL
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Deyo, Richard A.;Dworkin, Samuel F.;Weiner, Debra K.
通讯作者：
Weiner, Debra K.
影响因子：
--
作者：
Ford, Jon Joseph;Hahne, Andrew John
通讯作者：
Hahne, Andrew John