Validation of a consensus-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold using an objective functional external anchor

Spine Journal

Volumn 13, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 889-893

  Gatchel, Robert J ^a,b   Mayer, Tom G ^b   Choi, Yunhee ^c   Chou, Roger ^d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c PRIDE Research Foundation   (United States)

^d OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Chronic disabling occupational lumbar spinal disorders; Functional restoration; IMMPACT; Minimal clinically important difference (MCID); PILE (progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation)

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRESSIVE ISOINERTIAL LIFTING EVALUATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF CONCEPT; SELF REPORT; SPINE DISEASE; SPINE INJURY; STUDENT T TEST; VALIDATION STUDY; VALIDITY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

CHRONIC DISABLING OCCUPATIONAL LUMBAR SPINAL DISORDERS; FUNCTIONAL RESTORATION; IMMPACT; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE (MCID); PILE (PROGRESSIVE ISOINERTIAL LIFTING EVALUATION);

ADULT; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SPINAL DISEASES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84881174779     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: 18781632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.02.015     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. R.J. Gatchel, Y. Peng, and M.L. Peters The biopsychosocial approach to chronic pain: scientific advances and future directions Psychol Bull 133 2007 581 624
2. D.C. Turk, and E.S. Monarch Biopsychosocial approaches on chronic pain R.J. Gatchel, D.C. Turk, Psychological approaches to pain management: a practitioner's handbook 2002 Guilford Press New York, NY 3 29
3. R.J. Gatchel Clinical essentials of pain management 2005 American Psychological Association Washington, DC
4. R. Jaeschke, J.A. Singer, and G.H. Guyatt Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference Control Clin Trials 10 1989 407 415
5. R.J. Gatchel, and T.G. Mayer Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum? Spine J 10 2010 321 327
6. R.J. Gatchel, T.G. Mayer, and R. Chou What does/should the minimum clinically important difference measure? a re-consideration of its clinical value in evaluations efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery Clin J Pain 28 2012 387 397
7. R.J. Gatchel, J.D. Lurie, and T.G. Mayer Minimal clinically important difference Spine 35 2010 1739 1743
8. R.H. Dworkin, D.C. Turk, and J.T. Farrar Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations Pain 113 2005 9 19
9. R.H. Dworkin, D.C. Turk, and K.W. Wyrwich Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations J Pain 9 2008 105 121
10. J.A. Haythornthwaite IMMPACT recommendations for clinical trials: opportunities for the RDC/TMD J Oral Rehabil 37 2010 799 806
11. A.G. Copay, B.R. Subach, and S.D. Glassman Understanding clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods Spine J 7 2007 541 546
12. E.J. Carragee The rise and fall of the «minimum clinically important difference» Spine J 10 2010 283 284
13. K.F. Spratt Patient-level minimal clinically important difference based on clinical judgment and minimally detectable measurement difference: a rationale for the SF-36 physical function scale in the SPORT intervertebral disc herniation cohort Spine 34 2009 1722 1731
14. H.D. Wilson, T.G. Mayer, and R.J. Gatchel The lack of association between changes in functional outcomes and work retention in a chronic disabling occupational spinal disorder population: Implications for the minimum clinical important difference Spine 36 2011 474 480
15. T.G. Mayer, D. Barnes, and G. Nichols Progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation. II. A comparison with isokinetic lifting in a disabled chronic low-back pain industrial population Spine 13 1988 998 1002
16. T.G. Mayer, and R.J. Gatchel Functional restoration for spinal disorders: the sports medicine approach 1988 Lea & Febiger Philadelphia, PA
17. T.G. Mayer, R.J. Gatchel, and J. Keeley A male incumbent worker industrial database, Part I: lumbar spine physical capacity Spine 19 1994 755 761
18. T.G. Mayer, R.J. Gatchel, and J. Keeley A male incumbent worker industrial database, Part III: lumbar/cervical functional testing Spine 19 1994 765 770
19. L. Curtis, T.G. Mayer, and R.J. Gatchel Physical progress and residual impairment quantification after functional restoration. Part III: isokinetic and isoinertial lifting capacity Spine 18 1994 401 405
20. T.G. Mayer, R.J. Gatchel, and N. Kishino Objective assessment of spine function following industrial accident: a prospective study with comparison group and one-year follow-up; Volvo award in clinical sciences Spine 10 1985 482 493
21. T.G. Mayer, R.J. Gatchel, and H. Mayer A prospective two-year study of functional restoration in industrial low back injury: an objective assessment procedure JAMA 258 1987 1763 1767
22. P.B. Polatin, R. Kinney, and R.J. Gatchel Psychiatric illness and chronic low-back pain: the mind and the spine-which goes first? Spine 18 1992 66 71
23. T.G. Mayer, M. McMahon, and R.J. Gatchel Socioeconomic outcomes of combined spine surgery and functional restoration in workers' compensation spinal disorders with matched controls Spine 23 1998 598 606
24. T.G. Mayer, R.J. Gatchel, P.B. Polatin, and T. Evans Outcomes comparison of treatment for chronic disabling work-related upper extremity disorders J Occup Environ Med 41 1999 761 770
25. T.G. Mayer, E. Mayer, and D. Reese Lumbar musculature: anatomy and function H. Herkowitz, S. Garfin, F. Eismont, G. Bell, Rothman-simone. The spine 6th ed. 2011 WB Saunders Philadelphia, PA 80 96
26. C. Anagnostis, T.G. Mayer, R.J. Gatchel, and T. Proctor The million visual analog scale: its utility for predicting tertiary rehabilitation outcomes Spine 28 2003 1 10
27. J.C. Fairbank, J. Couper, J.B. Davies, and J.P. O'Brien The oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire Physiotherapy 66 1980 271 273
28. C. Anagnostis, R.J. Gatchel, and T.G. Mayer The pain disability questionnaire: a new psychometrically sound measure for chronic musculoskeletal disorders Spine 29 2004 2290 2302
29. T.G. Mayer, D. Barnes, and N.D. Kishino Progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation. Part I. A standardized protocol and normative database Spine 13 1988 993 997
30. S.D. Glassman, and L. Carreon Thresholds for health-related quality of life measures: reality testing Spine J 10 2010 328 329