Reliability, construct validity, responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference of the numeric pain rating scale and shoulder pain and disability index in patients with subacromial pain syndrome
Rattachement africain : it, us, lu, es. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background The numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) are commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with non-specific shoulder pain. To date, there are gaps in the evidence supporting the clinimetric properties of these PROMs for patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS). Methods A clinimetric analysis (n=145) was performed to examine the reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, interpretability, minimal detectable change (MDC 95 ) and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the NPRS and SPADI for "improved" (global rating of change from +3 to +7) and "much-improved" (global rating of change from +5 to +7) patients at 3-months follow-up. Results The NPRS (ICC: 0.86; 95%CI, 0.33-0.96) and SPADI (ICC: 0.79; 95%CI 0.12-0.94) exhibited good reliability and excellent responsiveness (NPRS: area under the curve (AUC)=0.96, 95%CI 0.92-0.99; SPADI: AUC=0.90, 95%CI 0.84-0.95) in this patient population. Both outcomes demonstrated strong construct validity (Pearson's r; p<0.001). The MDC 95 was a 1.7- and 20.5-point change for the NPRS and SPADI, respectively. For the NPRS, the MCID was a 1.5-point change in the "improved" group and a 2.5-point change in the "much improved" group. For the SPADI, the MCID was an 18-point or 50% change for the "improved" group, and a 25-point or 70% change in the "much improved" group. Conclusions The NPRS and SPADI demonstrated sound clinimetric properties in patients with SAPS. The MCID exceeded measurement error in the "much improved" groups. Diagnosis, type of intervention, level of improvement, and measurement error should be considered when applying the MCID.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Reliability, construct validity, responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference of the numeric pain rating scale and shoulder pain and disability index in patients with subacromial pain syndrome
- Date Crossref
- 01/10/2025
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Sapienza University of Rome Department of Human Neurosciences pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Lebanon Valley College USA pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Luxembourg Institute of Health pays non établi dans la noticeOrganisation à but non lucratif
-
Luxembourg Health & Sport Sciences Research Institute pays non établi dans la noticeOrganisation à but non lucratif
-
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Tybee Wellness & Osteopractic pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
American Academy of Manipulative Therapy Fellowship in Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
-
Department of Physical Therapy pays non établi dans la noticeInstitution
Department of Human Neurosciences — Sapienza University of Rome, USA — Lebanon Valley College et Luxembourg Institute of Health, avec 5 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.