Biomedical subjects

Charles G Greenough

Publications and source records attributed to Charles G Greenough.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Outcome assessment: recommendations for daily practice.

The choice of instruments for the assessment of outcome in spinal surgery is bewildering. For day-to-day practice, however, consideration of the purpose for which information is required allows construction of simple strategies for data collection. Recommendations are made for short and convenient data sets for use in personal audit, clinical governance, benchmarking, patient selection and business planning. No simple data set can measure in detail every aspect of practice, but use of these recommendations will provide information that will be of great value to the spinal surgeon and ultimately to his patients.

Back Pain↗

PubMed2005

Back related outcome assessment instruments.

A literature review of the most widely used condition specific, self administered assessment questionnaires for low back pain had been undertaken. General and historic aspects, reliability, responsiveness and minimum clinically important difference, external validity, floor and ceiling effects, and available languages were analysed. These criteria, however, are only part of the consideration. Of similar importance are the content, wording of questions and answers in each of the six questionnaires and an analysis of the different score results. The issue of score bias is discussed and suggestions are given in order to increase the construct validity in the practical use of the individual questionnaires.

Disability Evaluation↗

PubMed2004

The value of electromyography of the lumbar paraspinal muscles in discriminating between chronic-low-back-pain sufferers and normal subjects.

The authors studied the surface electromyographic (EMG) spectrum of the paraspinal muscles of 350 subjects. They were classified by their history as normal (n=175), chronic low back pain (n=145), or past history (n=30). They pulled upwards on a floor-mounted load cell at two-thirds of their maximum voluntary contraction for 30 s, while the EMG was measured from the paraspinal muscles at the L4/L5 level. From the EMG signal the root-mean-square (RMS) was calculated. Power spectrum analysis allowed calculation of the median frequency slope, the initial median frequency (IMF), modal frequency, peak amplitude and spectral width at half peak amplitude (half-width). All of the variables of the chronic group were significantly different from the normal group, except the median frequency slope, RMS slope and mode. Half-width, age and maximum voluntary contraction were shown to be independent predictors of back pain classification. Half-width classified the subjects with a sensitivity of 0.65 and a specificity of 0.75.

Chronic Disease↗

PubMed2002

The reliability of the Low Back Outcome Score for back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective test-retest study was conducted to investigate both new and follow-up patients with low back pain presenting to an orthopedic surgeon specializing in back pain. OBJECTIVES: To further validate the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the Low Back Outcome Score, and to compare these results with other condition-specific disability scales. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To be useful in clinical practice, health-specific questionnaires must demonstrate reliability and validity. Several disease-specific questionnaires for low back pain have been validated to different extents. METHODS: In this study, 102 new and 42 follow-up patients consecutively attending a consultant clinic completed the Low Back Outcome Score on their visit, then again after an interval of 1 week in postal form. This instrument also was completed by 230 patients presenting to a physiotherapist. RESULTS: A response rate of 90% was achieved for the postal questionnaire. A test of internal consistency conducted with the study sample achieved a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.85. Overall agreement for test-retest reliability was 84%, and the reliability coefficient (K) reached a range of 0.51 to 0.86 (P < 0.05). A Bland/Altman plot was calculated, demonstrating that only 5% of patient scores change by more than 11.6 scale points between test and retest, which is not sufficient to change outcome categories. CONCLUSION: The Low Back Outcome Score appears to have good internal consistency and test-retest reliability for use in clinical practice.

Adult↗