阿拉伯器械对腰痛患者疼痛和残疾的反应性

IF 0.1 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS International Journal of Physiotherapy Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.15621/IJPHY/2020/V7I6/838
Fahad Alanazi, H. Amer
{"title":"阿拉伯器械对腰痛患者疼痛和残疾的反应性","authors":"Fahad Alanazi, H. Amer","doi":"10.15621/IJPHY/2020/V7I6/838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QDS), and RolandMorris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is widely used in patients with low back pain (LBP) to assess the level of disability. Nonetheless, there are limited data about the responsiveness properties of the Arabic versions of these scales. This study was conducted to assess the responsiveness of the Arabic versions of the FABQ, QDS, and RMDQ compared to that of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Methods: A sample of 68 patients with LBP completed FABQ, QDS, RMDQ, and VAS at baseline and after 14 days. Responsiveness was evaluated by calculating the standard error of measurement (SEM), the minimal detectable difference at 95% confidence level (MDD95%), standardized response mean (SRM), Cohen’s effect size (ES), Guyatt’s responsiveness index (GRI), area under the curve (AUC), and minimal clinically significant difference (MCID). Results: The SEM, MDD95%, SRM, ES, GRI, AUC, and MCID for FABQ, QDS, RMDQ, and VAS were 2.54, 2.83, 0.77, and 0.82; 7.05, 7.85, 2.14, and 2.28; 0.67, 0.96, 0.74, and 1.04; 0.39, 0.39, 0.36, and 0.79; 0.76, 1.34, 1.26, and 1.66; 0.49, 0.63, 0.57, and 0.70; and 3.5, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.5; respectively. Conclusion: Although the responsiveness of the Arabic versions of FABQ, QDS, and RMDQ was below the recommended standards and less than the responsiveness calculated for the VAS, it was comparable with previously published versions in other languages. Additional studies are necessary to examine the three scales' responsiveness with a more extended follow-up period.","PeriodicalId":42989,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Physiotherapy","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"RESPONSIVENESS OF ARABIC INSTRUMENTS FOR PAIN AND DISABILITY IN PATIENTS WITH LOW BACK PAIN\",\"authors\":\"Fahad Alanazi, H. Amer\",\"doi\":\"10.15621/IJPHY/2020/V7I6/838\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QDS), and RolandMorris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is widely used in patients with low back pain (LBP) to assess the level of disability. Nonetheless, there are limited data about the responsiveness properties of the Arabic versions of these scales. This study was conducted to assess the responsiveness of the Arabic versions of the FABQ, QDS, and RMDQ compared to that of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Methods: A sample of 68 patients with LBP completed FABQ, QDS, RMDQ, and VAS at baseline and after 14 days. Responsiveness was evaluated by calculating the standard error of measurement (SEM), the minimal detectable difference at 95% confidence level (MDD95%), standardized response mean (SRM), Cohen’s effect size (ES), Guyatt’s responsiveness index (GRI), area under the curve (AUC), and minimal clinically significant difference (MCID). Results: The SEM, MDD95%, SRM, ES, GRI, AUC, and MCID for FABQ, QDS, RMDQ, and VAS were 2.54, 2.83, 0.77, and 0.82; 7.05, 7.85, 2.14, and 2.28; 0.67, 0.96, 0.74, and 1.04; 0.39, 0.39, 0.36, and 0.79; 0.76, 1.34, 1.26, and 1.66; 0.49, 0.63, 0.57, and 0.70; and 3.5, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.5; respectively. Conclusion: Although the responsiveness of the Arabic versions of FABQ, QDS, and RMDQ was below the recommended standards and less than the responsiveness calculated for the VAS, it was comparable with previously published versions in other languages. Additional studies are necessary to examine the three scales' responsiveness with a more extended follow-up period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15621/IJPHY/2020/V7I6/838\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15621/IJPHY/2020/V7I6/838","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ)、Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QDS)和RolandMorris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ)被广泛用于评估下腰痛(LBP)患者的残疾水平。然而,关于这些量表的阿拉伯语版本的反应性特性的数据有限。本研究旨在评估阿拉伯语版本的FABQ、QDS和RMDQ与视觉模拟量表(VAS)的反应性。方法:68例腰痛患者在基线和14天后完成FABQ、QDS、RMDQ和VAS。通过计算测量标准误差(SEM)、95%置信水平下的最小可检测差异(MDD95%)、标准化反应均值(SRM)、Cohen效应大小(ES)、Guyatt反应指数(GRI)、曲线下面积(AUC)和最小临床显著性差异(MCID)来评估反应性。结果:FABQ、QDS、RMDQ、VAS的SEM、MDD95%、SRM、ES、GRI、AUC、MCID分别为2.54、2.83、0.77、0.82;7.05, 7.85, 2.14, 2.28;0.67, 0.96, 0.74, 1.04;0.39、0.39、0.36、0.79;0.76, 1.34, 1.26, 1.66;0.49、0.63、0.57、0.70;还有3.5 4.5 2.5 1.5;分别。结论:虽然阿拉伯语版FABQ、QDS和RMDQ的反应性低于推荐标准,且低于VAS计算的反应性,但与先前发表的其他语言版本具有可比性。需要进一步的研究以更长的随访期来检验这三种量表的反应性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
RESPONSIVENESS OF ARABIC INSTRUMENTS FOR PAIN AND DISABILITY IN PATIENTS WITH LOW BACK PAIN
Background: Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QDS), and RolandMorris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) is widely used in patients with low back pain (LBP) to assess the level of disability. Nonetheless, there are limited data about the responsiveness properties of the Arabic versions of these scales. This study was conducted to assess the responsiveness of the Arabic versions of the FABQ, QDS, and RMDQ compared to that of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Methods: A sample of 68 patients with LBP completed FABQ, QDS, RMDQ, and VAS at baseline and after 14 days. Responsiveness was evaluated by calculating the standard error of measurement (SEM), the minimal detectable difference at 95% confidence level (MDD95%), standardized response mean (SRM), Cohen’s effect size (ES), Guyatt’s responsiveness index (GRI), area under the curve (AUC), and minimal clinically significant difference (MCID). Results: The SEM, MDD95%, SRM, ES, GRI, AUC, and MCID for FABQ, QDS, RMDQ, and VAS were 2.54, 2.83, 0.77, and 0.82; 7.05, 7.85, 2.14, and 2.28; 0.67, 0.96, 0.74, and 1.04; 0.39, 0.39, 0.36, and 0.79; 0.76, 1.34, 1.26, and 1.66; 0.49, 0.63, 0.57, and 0.70; and 3.5, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.5; respectively. Conclusion: Although the responsiveness of the Arabic versions of FABQ, QDS, and RMDQ was below the recommended standards and less than the responsiveness calculated for the VAS, it was comparable with previously published versions in other languages. Additional studies are necessary to examine the three scales' responsiveness with a more extended follow-up period.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
"Mc Gill Pain Questionnaire: A Cross-Cultural Adaptation Study in Chronic Neck Pain" "Incidence of Lower Limb Lymphedema in Post therapeutic Gynaecological Malignancies" "Comparative Effect of Modified Constraint Induced Movement Therapy, Proprioceptive Training and Task-Oriented Training on Functions of Upper Extremity among Stroke Patients" "Risk-Taking and Risk of Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Scoping Review" "Correlation of Self-Reported and Performance-Based Measures In Patients With Non-Traumatic Stiff Shoulder Pathologies: An Observational Study"
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1