Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale
Original Editor - Your name will be added here if you created the original content for this page.
Top Contributors - Laura Vander Goten, Berdien De Koster, Mariam Hashem, Uchechukwu Chukwuemeka, Lucinda hampton, 127.0.0.1, George Prudden, WikiSysop, Kim Jackson, Amrita Patro and Nupur Smit Shah
Search strategy
[edit | edit source]
Databases Searched: Web of knowledge, PubMed, PEDro, Vubis
Keyword Searches: ”Quebec back pain disability scale”, “Validity” And/ Or “reliability” AND “Quebec back pain disability scale”, “low back pain scales”,…
Search Timeline: November 11, 2013 – November 30, 2013
Objective
[edit | edit source]
Intended Population
[edit | edit source]
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
Reference
[edit | edit source]
Evidence[edit | edit source]
Reliability[edit | edit source]
Validity[edit | edit source]
Responsiveness[edit | edit source]
The responsiveness of the QBPDS is similar to the responsiveness of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, modified Oswestry disability questionnaire, Waddell disability index and the physical function subscale of SF-36. (Grade of recommendation: C) [4]
The QBPDS is highly sensitive to change for the score of the individual domains as for the total score (SRM= 0,80 and effect size= 0,62). [5] In addition, the scale is able to recognize small changes in level of disability over time. (Grade of recommendation: B) [3] Davidson and Keating found a minimal detectable change of 19 (95% CI 14-24) at patients with low back pain who reported no change during six weeks. For patients with chronic low back pain is the minimal detectable change 15,8. (Grade of recommendation: B) [3]
The area under the curve (AUC) can be used as a quantitative method to differ patients who improved or deteriorated from the patients who stayed stable. [1] The AUC for the detection of change in patients with chronic low back pain is 0,856. This means that in 85,60 % of the cases the test correctly recognize a change in chronic low back pain. (Grade of recommendation: B) [3]
Miscellaneous
[edit | edit source]
The patients and the clinicians both accept the use of the QBPDS. Researchers (Kopec et al.) declare a low item default (range 0,7-1,8%) [7]. Questionnaires sent by mail had a higher rate of incomplete questionnaires (10.8%). Some patients remarked that a couple of items were not precise enough and the choice between score 0 and 1 and between 4 and 5 wasn’t always convenient. The researchers didn’t found ceiling or floor effects in the answers. (Grade of recommendation: B) [3]
Links[edit | edit source]
Recent Related Research (from Pubmed)[edit | edit source]
Extension:RSS -- Error: Not a valid URL: Feed goes here!!|charset=UTF-8|short|max=10
References[edit | edit source]
References will automatically be added here, see adding references tutorial.
