Differences among outcome measures in occupational low back pain.

Sue A Ferguson, William S Marras, Deborah L Burr
Author Information
  1. Sue A Ferguson: Biodynamics Laboratory, Institute for Ergonomics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. Ferguson.4@osu.edu

Abstract

The rate of recurrence in low back pain patients has been reported as high as 70%; therefore, it is believed that researchers have a poor understanding of low back pain recovery. To enhance our understanding of recovery, a large cross-sectional study was conducted to compare outcome measures of return to work, impairment of activities of daily living, pain symptoms, and functional performance probability. A total of 208 workers were examined. The percentage of workers recovered based on return to work criteria was 99% compared to 25% for impairment of activities of daily living, 17% for symptoms, and 12.5% for functional performance probability. Single functional performance measures of range of motion, velocity, and acceleration had recovery rates of 59, 13, and 10%, respectively. It appears that all these criteria are measuring very different parameters of low back pain recovery. The residual loss in functional performance may indicate a decreased tolerance to physical demand providing potential insight for why recurrent low back pain rates are high.

References

  1. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1991;23(3):165-73 [PMID: 1962160]
  2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Oct 15;24(20):2091-100 [PMID: 10543004]
  3. Pain. 1989 Oct;39(1):55-67 [PMID: 2530487]
  4. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jun 1;28(11):1189-94 [PMID: 12782991]
  5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Jun;17(6):653-62 [PMID: 1385659]
  6. Pain. 1995 Sep;62(3):363-72 [PMID: 8657437]
  7. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Sep;16(9):1062-7 [PMID: 1835162]
  8. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984 Sep;9(6):588-95 [PMID: 6238424]
  9. Br J Ind Med. 1988 Dec;45(12):829-33 [PMID: 2975503]
  10. Occup Med (Lond). 1996 Feb;46(1):25-32 [PMID: 8672790]
  11. Clin J Pain. 2001 Dec;17(4 Suppl):S39-45 [PMID: 11783830]
  12. Cleve Clin J Med. 1996 Jan-Feb;63(1):62-9 [PMID: 8590519]
  13. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Mar;17(3):307-10 [PMID: 1533059]
  14. Pain. 2001 Oct;94(1):7-15 [PMID: 11576740]
  15. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Dec 1;20(23):2531-46 [PMID: 8610248]
  16. Pain. 1999 Mar;80(1-2):329-39 [PMID: 10204746]
  17. Pain. 1994 Apr;57(1):69-76 [PMID: 8065799]
  18. J Occup Rehabil. 2002 Dec;12(4):277-95 [PMID: 12389479]
  19. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1995 Jan;21(1):7-12 [PMID: 7889032]
  20. Phys Ther. 1997 Apr;77(4):354-60; discussion 361-9 [PMID: 9105339]
  21. N Engl J Med. 1995 Oct 5;333(14):913-7 [PMID: 7666878]
  22. Orthop Clin North Am. 1996 Oct;27(4):841-60 [PMID: 8823401]
  23. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Nov 1;22(21):2575-80 [PMID: 9383868]
  24. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2000 Jul;73(5):339-48 [PMID: 10963418]
  25. Am J Ind Med. 2000 Apr;37(4):400-9 [PMID: 10706752]
  26. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Apr 15;27(8):864-70 [PMID: 11935111]
  27. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Aug;16(8):967-72 [PMID: 1835157]
  28. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Feb 15;20(4):460-8 [PMID: 7747230]
  29. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Feb 15;20(4):478-84 [PMID: 7747233]
  30. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Sep 1;28(17):1913-21 [PMID: 12973134]
  31. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986 May;67(5):293-6 [PMID: 3707313]
  32. Pain. 1993 Apr;53(1):89-94 [PMID: 8316395]
  33. J Occup Environ Med. 1997 Jan;39(1):35-43 [PMID: 9029429]
  34. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990 Dec;15(12):1321-4 [PMID: 2149211]
  35. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Apr 15;29(8):914-9 [PMID: 15082996]
  36. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Aug 1;25(15):1950-6 [PMID: 10908939]
  37. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991 Jan;16(1):1-6 [PMID: 1825891]
  38. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Feb;14(2):157-61 [PMID: 2522243]
  39. Clin J Pain. 2002 Jul-Aug;18(4):251-61 [PMID: 12131067]
  40. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Feb 15;28(4):380-4 [PMID: 12590215]
  41. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Dec;18(16):2412-8 [PMID: 8303442]
  42. Pain. 2004 Jan;107(1-2):77-85 [PMID: 14715392]
  43. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Nov 15;24(22):2339-45 [PMID: 10586458]
  44. Spine J. 2004 Jan-Feb;4(1):64-75 [PMID: 14749195]
  45. Pain. 1995 May;61(2):299-307 [PMID: 7659441]
  46. Am J Ind Med. 1996 Jun;29(6):632-41 [PMID: 8773723]
  47. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Feb 15;20(4):473-7 [PMID: 7747232]
  48. Spine J. 2004 Jan-Feb;4(1):106-15 [PMID: 14749199]
  49. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987 Sep;12(7):632-44 [PMID: 2961080]
  50. Am J Ind Med. 2001 Oct;40(4):374-92 [PMID: 11598987]
  51. J Occup Med. 1968 Apr;10 (4):174-8 [PMID: 4231057]
  52. Spine J. 2003 May-Jun;3(3):220-6 [PMID: 14589203]
  53. BMJ. 1999 Jun 19;318(7199):1662-7 [PMID: 10373170]
  54. Pain. 1975 Sep;1(3):277-99 [PMID: 1235985]
  55. J Occup Rehabil. 2003 Mar;13(1):21-31 [PMID: 12611028]
  56. J Spinal Disord. 1995 Feb;8(1):15-9 [PMID: 7711365]
  57. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993 Jun 1;18(7):825-9 [PMID: 8316879]
  58. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Apr;14(4):427-30 [PMID: 2524113]
  59. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1985 Oct;10(8):765-72 [PMID: 2934831]
  60. Spine J. 2002 Nov-Dec;2(6):402-7 [PMID: 14589260]
  61. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Dec 1;27(23):2715-9 [PMID: 12461398]
  62. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1982 May-Jun;7(3):204-12 [PMID: 6214028]
  63. Phys Ther. 1995 Mar;75(3):180-93 [PMID: 7870750]
  64. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Dec 15;21(24):2900-7 [PMID: 9112715]
  65. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1983;15(2):71-9 [PMID: 6223365]
  66. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1992 Jun;17(6):641-52 [PMID: 1385658]
  67. Clin J Pain. 1995 Dec;11(4):296-306 [PMID: 8788577]

MeSH Term

Activities of Daily Living
Adult
Cross-Sectional Studies
Disability Evaluation
Humans
Industry
Low Back Pain
Middle Aged
Midwestern United States
Occupational Diseases
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Pain Measurement
Range of Motion, Articular
Recovery of Function
Recurrence
Rehabilitation, Vocational
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0painlowbackrecoveryfunctionalperformancemeasureshighunderstandingoutcomereturnworkimpairmentactivitiesdailylivingsymptomsprobabilityworkerscriteriaratesraterecurrencepatientsreported70%thereforebelievedresearcherspoorenhancelargecross-sectionalstudyconductedcomparetotal208examinedpercentagerecoveredbased99%compared25%17%125%Singlerangemotionvelocityacceleration591310%respectivelyappearsmeasuringdifferentparametersresiduallossmayindicatedecreasedtolerancephysicaldemandprovidingpotentialinsightrecurrentDifferencesamongoccupational

Similar Articles

Cited By