Clinical Relevance of Changes in Pain Intensity in Patients with Specific Back Pain

Abstract

Background Pain intensity is frequently measured on the 11-point numerical pain rating scale (NRS-PI), ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 points (worst imaginable pain). However, it is difficult to interpret the clinical importance of changes from baseline to endpoint on this instrument.

Objectives To estimate the minimal detectable change (MDC) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for average pain intensity in patients with specific back pain.

Materials and Methods Data on 1232 subjects with specific back pain from a German hospital were included in this study. A score combining the patientʼs (PGIC) and the physicianʼs global impression of change (CGIC) over the in-patient length of stay was used as an external criterion. A priori, we considered the score value “slightly improved” as the MCID. MDC was calculated using the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the standard deviation (SD) of the sample. MCID was estimated by the mean value of PI-NRS change in patients who self-assess as “slightly improved”, and by sensitivity/specificity analyses, computed by the receiver operating characteristic method (ROC).

Results MDC was 1.77. The MCS and ROC methods consistently showed an MCID of 2 for the total sample. Both methods showed the dependence of the MCID on the initial pain: 1 for mild to moderate pain at baseline (1 – 4 NRS points), 2 for moderate to severe pain (5 – 7) and 3 – 4 for very severe to extreme pain (8 – 10). For patients with lumbosacral intervertebral disc disorders and patients in the acute phase (duration of pain < 6 weeks), the ROC method resulted in a higher limit than the MCS method.

Conclusions In order to facilitate the interpretation of changes and to take into account the patientʼs perspective, the global assessment of the success of treatment should be used as an anchor criterion. In addition to dealing with pain measurement, function-related and psychosocial aspects of pain symptoms should be kept in mind.

Key words

specific back pain - pain measurement - numeric pain rating scale - minimal clinically important difference

Publication History

Article published online:
18 January 2021

• References/Literatur

• 1 Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT. et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005; 113: 9-19 doi:10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012
• 2 Chiarotto A, Boers M, Deyo RA. et al. Core outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in nonspecific low back pain. Pain 2018; 159: 481-495 doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001117
• 3 Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407-415 doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6
• 4 Ferreira ML, Herbert RD, Ferreira PH. et al. A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol 2012; 65: 253-261 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.018
• 5 Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P. et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33: 90-94 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815e3a10
• 6 Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW. et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008; 9: 105-121 doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2007.09.005
• 7 Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N. et al. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 285-295 doi:10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2
• 8 Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD. et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 2007; 7: 541-546 doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008
• 9 Maughan EF, Lewis JS. Outcome measures in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 1484-1494 doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1353-6
• 10 Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 1153-1160 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.04.004
• 11 de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB. et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 131-142 doi:10.1007/s11136-006-9109-9
• 12 Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D. et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 102-109 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012
• 13 de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW. et al. Minimal Changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 54 doi:10.1186/1477-7525-4-54
• 14 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie (DGOOC). Kroppenstedt S, Halder A. S2k-Leitlinie Spezifischer Kreuzschmerz. Dezember 2017. AWMF Registernummer: 033–051. Im Internet (Stand: 26.03.2020): https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/033-051l_S2k_Spezifischer_Kreuzschmerz_2018-02.pdf
• 15 Haase I, Haase K, Kladny B. Evaluation einer stationären nicht operative Behandlung von akuten, subakuten und chronischen Rückenschmerzen. Z Orthop Unfall 2018; 156: 184-192 doi:10.1055/s-0043-120201
• 16 Pool JJ, Ostelo RW, Hoving JL. et al. Minimal clinically important change of the Neck Disability Index and the Numerical Rating Scale for patients with neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 3047-3051 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815cf75b
• 17 van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE. et al. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31: 578-582 doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000201293.57439.47
• 18 Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA. et al. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain 2004; 8: 283-291 doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.09.004
• 19 Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J. The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 82: 126-136 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.016
• 20 van Kampen DA, Willems WJ, van Beers LWAH. et al. Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). J Orthop Surg Res 2013; 8: 40 doi:10.1186/1749-799X-8-40
• 21 Sullivan MD, Ballantyne JC. Must we reduce pain intensity to treat chronic pain?. Pain 2016; 157: 65-69 doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000336
• 22 Radbruch L, Loick G, Kiencke P. Validation of the German version of the Brief Pain Inventory. J Pain Symptom Manage 1999; 18: 180-187 doi:10.1016/s0885-3924(99)00064-0
• 23 Raspe H. Themenheft 53 „Rückenschmerzen“. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. Berlin: RKI; 2012
• 24 Bundesärztekammer (BÄK), Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV), Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF). Hrsg. Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie Nicht-spezifischer Kreuzschmerz – Langfassung. 2. Aufl. Version 1. 2017
• 25 Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 1331-1334 doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29
• 26 Kovacs FM, Abraira V, Royuela A. et al. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity and disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32: 2915-2920 doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815b75ae
• 27 Cleland JA, Whitman JM, Houser JL. et al. Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J 2012; 12: 921-931 doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.05.004
• 28 Austevoll IM, Gjestad R, Grotle M. et al. Follow-up score, change score or percentage change score for determining clinical important outcome following surgery? An observational study from the Norwegian registry for Spine surgery evaluating patient reported outcome measures in lumbar spinal stenosis and lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20: 31 doi:10.1186/s12891-018-2386-y
• 29 Kovacs FM, Abraira V, Royuela A. et al. Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008; 9: 43 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-9-43
• 30 Lauridsen HH, Hartvigsen J, Manniche C. et al. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006; 7: 82 doi:10.1186/1471-2474-7-82
• 31 Froud R, Fawkes C, Foss J. et al. Responsiveness, Reliability, and Minimally Important and Minimal Detectable Changes of 3 Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Low Back Pain: Validation Study. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20: e272 doi:10.2196/jmir.9828
• 32 Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L. et al. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001; 94: 149-158 doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00349-9
• 33 Kumar R, Indrayan A. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for medical researchers. Indian Pediatr 2011; 48: 277-287 doi:10.1007/s13312-011-0055-4
• 34 Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther 2009; 17: 163-170 doi:10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163