| PMC full text: | Published online 2015 Aug 19. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0632-0
|
Table 1
Pretreatment characteristics and univariate pain prediction modelsa
| Baseline Mean (SD) (N = 391) | Responder model significance | Future Pain Intensity model significance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dose (per 6 spinal manipulation visits) | † | † | |
| Time (in weeks | |||
| Pain/Disability | |||
| Pain intensity (0–100 scale) | 51.6 (17.2) | † | |
| Functional disability (0–100) | 45.3 (22.7) | † | |
| Pain unpleasantness (0–100) | 41.4 (21.4) | † | |
| Days with pain (last 4 wk) | 24.1 ( 5.2) | † | |
| Days with disability (last 4 wk) | 6.8 ( 7.6) | † | |
| Duration (yr) | 11.8 ( 9.8) | ||
| Sociodemographics | |||
| Age (yr) | 41.3 (14.1) | ||
| Female, % (n) | 50 % (196) | ||
| Non-white or Hispanic, % (n) | 15 % (58) | ||
| College degree, % (n) | 56 % (219) | ||
| Income $40 K or less, % (n) | 57 % (222) | ||
| General Health | |||
| Comorbidities (#) | 0.9 ( 1.1) | † | |
| Smoking, % (n) | 11 % (43) | ||
| SF-12 physical health componentb | 43.3 ( 8.9) | † | |
| SF-12 mental health componentb | 48.9 (10.5) | ||
| EuroQol – VAS (0–100 visual analog scale) | 70.9 (15.8) | † | † |
| EuroQol 5D – mobility (1–3) | 1.4 ( 0.5) | † | |
| EuroQol 5D – self-care (1–3) | 1.2 ( 0.4) | † | † |
| EuroQol 5D – usual activities (1–3) | 1.7 ( 0.5) | † | |
| EuroQol 5D – pain (1–3) | 2.0 ( 0.2) | † | |
| EuroQol 5D – anxiety/depression (1–3) | 1.4 ( 0.5) | † | |
| Psychosocial | |||
| FABQ Work beliefs (0–100) | 32.9 (21.8) | † | |
| FABQ Activity beliefs (0–100) | 56.0 (20.3) | † | |
| Confidence in treatment success (−6 - +6) | 0.2 ( 0.8) | ||
| Objective Physical Exam c | |||
| Lumbar ROM: flexion | 43.2 (16.3) | ||
| Lumbar ROM: extension | 15.1 (10.2) | ||
| Lumbar ROM: right lateral bending | 18.6 ( 9.4) | ||
| Lumbar ROM: left lateral bending | 19.1 ( 8.9) | ||
| LBP: Flexion (0–10) | 2.3 ( 2.4) | † | † |
| LBP: Extension (0–10) | 3.0 ( 2.4) | † | |
| LBP: Right lateral bending (0–10) | 2.7 ( 2.4) | † | † |
| LBP: Left lateral bending (0–10) | 2.6 ( 2.3) | † | † |
| LBP: sum for 4 lumbar ROM 0–10 pain scores | 10.7 ( 7.9) | † | † |
| LBP: maximum of 4 lumbar ROM pain scores | 4.0 ( 2.3) | † | |
| LBP: right – left lateral bending | 0.1 ( 1.9) | ||
| LBP: |right – left lateral bending| | 1.2 ( 1.5) | ||
| LBP: sum for right and left lateral bending pain scores | 5.3 ( 4.3) | † | † |
| LBP: maximum of right and left lateral bending pain scores | 3.2 ( 2.4) | † | † |
| Modified Schober Test (cm) | 5.7 ( 2.0) | ||
| Lumbar hypomobility: L1, % (n) | 54 % (209) | † | |
| Lumbar hypomobility: L2, % (n) | 52 % (200) | ||
| Lumbar hypomobility: L3, % (n) | 49 % (189) | ||
| Lumbar hypomobility: L4, % (n) | 49 % (191) | ||
| Lumbar hypomobility: L5, % (n) | 64 % (248) | ||
| Total hypomobile joints: L1 thru L5 | 2.7 ( 1.3) | ||
| Pain Pressure Threshold: right L1-L2 | 6.1 ( 2.8) | ||
| Pain Pressure Threshold: left L1-L2 | 6.2 ( 2.9) | ||
| Pain Pressure Threshold: right L3-L4 | 5.9 ( 3.0) | ||
| Pain Pressure Threshold: left L3-L4 | 6.0 ( 3.2) | ||
| Pain Pressure Threshold: right L5-S1 | 5.8 ( 3.2) | † | |
| Pain Pressure Threshold: left L5-S1 | 5.7 ( 3.3) | † | |
| Pain Pressure Threshold: minimum of 6 measures | 4.5 ( 2.5) | † |
r Pearson’s correlation coefficient
β regression coefficient
VAS visual analog scale
FABQ fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire
ROM range of motion
LBP low back pain
†Variables with a statistically significant association with outcome
p-value < 0.05, after adjusting for dose
aLogistic and linear longitudinal regressions were adjusted for dose and were fitted using generalized estimating equations to account for correlation across time points. Only the statistically significant variables (p < .05) in this table are used as candidates for the subsequent inclusion into the relevant final multivariate prediction models
bScores are standardized to the US general population (mean = 50, SD = 10)
cROM was measured in degrees, LBP during ROM on a 0 to 10 scale for each of the 4 ROMs, and pain pressure threshold in kg. Hypomobility was identified using manual motion palpation