This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hutten, M M. Articles by Zilvold, G Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hutten, M M. Articles by Zilvold, G Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Differences in treatment outcome between subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain using lumbar dynamometry and psychological aspects

H Hermens

Roessingh Research and Development, The Netherlands

G Zilvold

Rehabilitation Centre Het Roessingh, Enschede, The Netherlands

Objective: To investigate whether subgroups of patients with chronic low back pain show differences in treatment outcome, measured with the Roland Disability Questionnaire. (RDQ).

Setting: The study was carried out in a rehabilitation centre.

Subjects: Eighty-four patients with chronic low back pain participated in this study.

Intervention: Patients followed a multidisciplinary treatment programme that primarily targets physical aspects.

Design and main outcome measure: Based on pretreatment lumbar dynamometry results and Symptom Checklist (SCL-90) scores, patients were divided into subgroups. The dynamometry subgroups were: performances lower than healthy subjects (expected performance), performances comparable with those of healthy subjects (normal performance) and inconsistent performances (submaximal performance). The SCL-90 subgroups were: a total score of ‘average’ or lower compared with a population of chronic pain patients (low psychological score) and a total score of ‘above average’ or higher compared with this population (high psychological score). Patients answered the RDQ in the week before (RDQ₁; n = 84) and after treatment (RDQ₂; n = 78) to investigate whether the subgroups show differences in outcome expressed as the percentage change between RDQ₂ and RDQ₁ (%RDQ_2–1). A%RDQ_2–1 20% was classified as an improvement.

Results: Improvement on disability level 20% is shown in 64% and 55% of the patients with ‘normal’ and ‘expected’ lumbar dynamometry performances and low psychological scores compared with only 33% and 25% of those with high psychological scores. Patients with submaximal performances show hardly any changes in disability level and there are no differences between those with low psychological scores (14%) and those reporting high scores (0%).

Conclusion: The fact that patient subgroups with differences in treatment outcome can be defined using lumbar dynamometry and psychological questionnaires suggests that these instruments might facilitate treatment indication in clinical practice.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. M. Vollenbroek-Hutten, H. J Hermens, D. Wever, M. Gorter, J. Rinket, and M. J IJzerman Differences in outcome of a multidisciplinary treatment between subgroups of chronic low back pain patients defined using two multiaxial assessment instruments: the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and lumbar dynamometry Clinical Rehabilitation, May 1, 2004; 18(5): 566 - 579. [Abstract] [PDF]