| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Research Reports |
MW Werneke, PT, MS, Dip MDT, is Physical Therapist, Rehabilitation Department, Spine Center, CentraState Medical Center, 901 W Main St, Freehold, NJ 07728 (USA) (mwerneke{at}centrastate.com).
DL Hart, PT, PhD, is Director of Consulting and Research, Focus On Therapeutic Outcomes Inc, White Stone, Va
Address all correspondence to Mr Werneke
Background and Purpose. Quebec Task Force Classification (QTFC) and pain pattern classification (PPC) procedures, including centralization and noncentralization, are common classification procedures. Classification was done to estimate validity of data obtained with QTFC and PPC procedures for differentiating patient subgroups at intake and for use in predicting rehabilitation outcomes at discharge and work status at 1 year after discharge from rehabilitation. Subjects. Patients (n=171, 54% male; mean age=37 years, SD=10, range=18–62) with acute work-related low back pain referred for physical therapy were analyzed. Methods. Patients completed pain and psychosocial questionnaires at initial examination and discharge and pain diagrams throughout intervention. Physical therapists classified patients using QTFC and PPC data at intake. Patients were classified again at discharge by PPC (time-dependent PPC). Results. Analysis of variance of showed QTFC and PPC data could be used to differentiate patients by pain intensity or disability at intake. Analysis of covariance showed that intake PPC predicted pain intensity and disability at discharge, but QTFC did not. Logistic regression showed that PPC predicted work status at 1 year, but QTFC did not. Classifying patients over time using time-dependent PPC data reduced the false positive rate by 31% and increased percentage of change in pretest-posttest probability of return to work by 16% compared with classifying patients at intake. Discussion and Conclusion. Results support the discriminant validity of the QTFC data at intake and predictive validity of the PPC data at intake. Tracking PPC over time increases predictive validity for 1-year work status.
Key Words: Centralization • Classification • Discriminant and predictive validity • Low back pain • Pain pattern • Quebec Task Force
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Resnik and D. L Hart Author Response Physical Therapy, September 1, 2008; 88(9): 1009 - 1011. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Deutscher, D. L Hart, R. Dickstein, S. D Horn, and M. Gutvirtz Implementing an Integrated Electronic Outcomes and Electronic Health Record Process to Create a Foundation for Clinical Practice Improvement Physical Therapy, February 1, 2008; 88(2): 270 - 285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M Fritz and G. P Brennan Preliminary Examination of a Proposed Treatment-Based Classification System for Patients Receiving Physical Therapy Interventions for Neck Pain Physical Therapy, May 1, 2007; 87(5): 513 - 524. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. E Bekkering, M. W van Tulder, E. J. Hendriks, M. A Koopmanschap, D. L Knol, L. M Bouter, and R. A. Oostendorp Implementation of Clinical Guidelines on Physical Therapy for Patients With Low Back Pain: Randomized Trial Comparing Patient Outcomes After a Standard and Active Implementation Strategy Physical Therapy, June 1, 2005; 85(6): 544 - 555. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Z George and A. Delitto Clinical Examination Variables Discriminate Among Treatment-Based Classification Groups: A Study of Construct Validity in Patients With Acute Low Back Pain Physical Therapy, April 1, 2005; 85(4): 306 - 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
