Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34098929›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021

Limited predictive value of illness perceptions for short-term poor recovery in musculoskeletal pain. A multi-center longitudinal study.

E J de Raaij, H Wittink, J F Maissan, P Westers, R W J G Ostelo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

E J de RaaijResearch Group Lifestyle and Health, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 7, CS, Utrecht, 3584, The Netherlands. edwin.deraaij@hu.nl.
H WittinkResearch Group Lifestyle and Health, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 7, CS, Utrecht, 3584, The Netherlands.
J F MaissanResearch Group Lifestyle and Health, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 7, CS, Utrecht, 3584, The Netherlands.
P WestersJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Department of Data Science and Biostatistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
R W J G OsteloDepartment of Health Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMusculoskeletal pain (MSP) is recognized worldwide as a major cause of increased years lived with disability. In addition to known generic prognostic factors, illness perceptions (IPs) may have predictive value for poor recovery in MSP. We were interested in the added predictive value of baseline IPs, over and above the known generic prognostic factors, on clinical recovery from MSP. Also, it is hypothesized there may be overlap between IPs and domains covered by the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ), measuring distress, depression, anxiety and somatization. The aim of this study is twofold; 1) to assess the added predictive value of IPs for poor recovery and 2) to assess differences in predictive value for poor recovery between the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire - Dutch Language Version (Brief IPQ-DLV) and the 4DSQ.

methodsAn eligible sample of 251 patients with musculoskeletal pain attending outpatient physical therapy were included in a multi-center longitudinal cohort study. Pain intensity, physical functioning and Global Perceived Effect were the primary outcomes. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to assess the added value of baseline IPs for predicting poor recovery. To investigate the performance of the models, the levels of calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshov test) and discrimination (Area under the Curve (AUC)) were assessed.

resultsBaseline 'Treatment Control' added little predictive value for poor recovery in pain intensity [Odds Ratio (OR) 0.80 (Confidence Interval (CI) 0.66-0.97), increase in AUC 2%] and global perceived effect [OR 0.78 (CI 0.65-0.93), increase in AUC 3%]. Baseline 'Timeline' added little predictive value for poor recovery in physical functioning [OR 1.16 (CI 1.03-1.30), increase in AUC 2%]. There was a non-significant difference between AUCs in predictive value for poor recovery between the Brief IPQ-DLV and the 4DSQ.

conclusionsBased on the findings of this explorative study, assessing baseline IPs, over and above the known generic prognostic factors, does not result in a substantial improvement in the prediction of poor recovery. Also, no recommendations can be given for preferring either the 4DSQ or the Brief IPQ-DLV to assess psychological factors.

Indexed as

Musculoskeletal PainAnxietyHumansLongitudinal StudiesPerceptionSurveys and QuestionnairesIllness perceptionsMusculoskeletal painPainPhysical functioningPrediction poor outcome

Identifiers

PMID34098929
PMCPMC8186079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.