ArticleSpine2019
The NIH Minimal Dataset for Chronic Low Back Pain: Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Change.
Article in Spine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of clinical and biomechanical characteristics between individuals with lower limb amputation with and without lower back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluating the effects of a sedentary time reduction intervention on pain, mood, and quality of life in chronic low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2026Trial
- Estimating minimal important change of the National Institutes of health research task force impact score using computer adaptive measures: a secondary analysis of two randomized clinical trials in a military population with chronic pain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Trial
- Assessing the Significance of Individual Change in 2 Samples of Patients in Treatment for Low Back Pain Using 5 Different Statistical Indicators.Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeuticsTrial
- A predictive model for classifying low back pain status based on lumbopelvic kinematics measured using inertial measurement units: a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Article
- Role of Pain Catastrophizing in the Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain in Different Subgroups: An Exploratory Secondary Data Analysis Using Finite Mixture Models.Military medicine · 2024Article
- Classifying patients with non-specific chronic low back pain using the impact stratification score in an online convenience sample.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Responsiveness of Persian 12-Item multiple sclerosis walking scale: a replication study.BMC research notes · 2023Article
- Protocol for a pilot and feasibility randomized-controlled trial of four weeks of oral γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) intake and its effect on pain and sleep in middle-to-older aged adults.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- Unpacking the impact of chronic pain as measured by the impact stratification score.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- A Scoping Review of Chronic Low Back Pain Classification Schemes Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes.Pain physician · 2022Article
- Validation of the work ability index-single item and the pain disability index-work item in patients with chronic low back pain.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022Article
- Electroencephalography Signatures for Conditioned Pain Modulation and Pain Perception in Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain-An Exploratory Study.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Support for the Reliability and Validity of the National Institutes of Health Impact Stratification Score in a Sample of Active-Duty U.S. Military Personnel with Low Back Pain.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2021Article
- Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Review
- Trajectories of Disability and Low Back Pain Impact: 2-year Follow-up of the Groningen Spine Cohort.Spine · 2020Article
- Clinical and biobehavioral phenotypic assessments and data harmonization for the RE-JOIN research consortium: Recommendations for common data element selection.Neurobiology of pain (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designProspective cohort study.
objectiveTo analyze responsiveness and minimal clinically important change (MCIC) of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) minimal dataset for chronic low back pain (CLBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The NIH minimal dataset is a 40-item questionnaire developed to increase use of standardized definitions and measures for CLBP. Longitudinal validity of the total minimal dataset and the subscale Impact Stratification are unknown.
methodsTotal outcome scores on the NIH minimal dataset, Dutch Language Version, were calculated ranging from 0 to 100 points with higher scores representing worse functioning. Responsiveness and MCIC were determined with an anchor-based method, calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) and by determining the optimal cut-off point. Smallest detectable change (SDC) was calculated as a parameter of measurement error.
resultsIn total 223 patients with CLBP were included. Mean total score on the NIH minimal dataset was 44 ± 14 points at baseline. The total outcome score was responsive to change with an AUC of 0.84. MCIC was 14 points with a sensitivity of 72% and specificity 82%, and SDC was 23 points. Mean total score on Impact Stratification (scale 8-50) was 34.4 ± 7.4 points at baseline, with an AUC of 0.91, an MCIC of 7.5 with a sensitivity 96% of and specificity of 78%, and an SDC of 14 points.
conclusionThe longitudinal validity of the NIH minimal dataset is adequate. An improvement of 14 points in total outcome score and 7.5 points in Impact Stratification can be interpreted as clinically important in individual patients. However, MCIC depends on baseline values and the method that is chosen to determine the optimal cut-off point. Furthermore, measurement error is larger than the MCIC. This means that individual change scores should be interpreted with caution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.