Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35066684›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022

Validation of the work ability index-single item and the pain disability index-work item in patients with chronic low back pain.

Imke Boekel, Alisa L Dutmer, Henrica R Schiphorst Preuper, Michiel F Reneman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

4 authors.

Imke BoekelFaculty of Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8025-8789
Alisa L DutmerDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0598-8516
Henrica R Schiphorst PreuperDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9460-3459
Michiel F RenemanDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. m.f.reneman@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4058-3437

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA cross-sectional and longitudinal study was conducted to analyse construct validity, responsiveness, and Minimal Clinically Important Change (MCIC) in the Work Ability Score (WAS) and Pain Disability Index Work item (PDI-W) in patients with Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP).

methodConstruct validity was assessed by testing predefined hypotheses. Responsiveness and MCIC were measured with an anchor-based method. The area under the receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) and the optimal cut-off point were calculated. Smallest Detectable Change (SDC) was calculated to determine measurement error.

resultsIn total, 1502 patients (age 18-65 years) with CLBP were included. For validity of the WAS and PDI-W, respectively, seven and six out of 10 hypotheses were not rejected. The WAS (n = 355) was responsive to change with an AUC of 0.70. MCIC was 1.5 point, SDC

conclusionConstruct validity of the WAS and PDI-W was insufficient in this patient sample. The WAS and PDI-W are responsive to change. On average, improvements of 1.5 point (WAS) and  - 2.5 points (PDI-W) were interpreted as clinically important. However, MCICs are also baseline dependent. Due to a risk of measurement error, at the individual level change scores should be interpreted with caution.

Indexed as

Chronic PainLow Back PainAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDisability EvaluationHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedPain MeasurementReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesWork Capacity EvaluationYoung AdultConstruct validityLongitudinal validityMinimal clinically important differenceResponsivenessSmallest detectable change

Identifiers

PMID35066684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.