PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9779536

Methodologic issues in low back pain research in primary care.

L M Bouter·M W van Tulder·B W Koes
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review and discussion of the selected literature. OBJECTIVES: To discuss some important methodologic challenges in low back pain research in primary care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many methodologic problems must be confronted when conducting low back pain research. Some of these problems are back pain specific or specific to the primary care setting. METHODS: Methodologic problems related to four research issues will be discussed: study designs, definition of low back pain, determinants of low back pain, and outcome assessment. RESULTS: Two fundamentally different study designs are frequently used in low back pain research, namely observational studies and experimental studies. The definition of low back pain is typically restricted to a highly variables self-reported symptom, the sensation of pain in the back. There clearly is a need for an evidence-based classification system for low back pain. Because a tenable theoretical framework is lacking, it is difficult to know which determinants of low back pain should be quantified. Low back pain studies focus usually on health-related quality-of-life outcome parameters. The identification of the minimum clinically relevant changes for the most important outcome instruments needs further consideration. CONCLUSIONS: In years to come, low back pain researchers are challenged to overcome some of these (and other) problems to enhance the quality of low back pain research in primary care.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicHumansLow Back PainOutcome Assessment, Health CarePrimary Health CareQuality of LifeResearch DesignJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L M Bouter, M W van Tulder, B W Koes. 1998-09-15. Methodologic issues in low back pain research in primary care.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199809150-00019

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2008

On the exact interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves.

An important measure for comparison of accuracy between two diagnostic procedures is the difference in paired areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Non-parametric and maximum likelihood methods have been proposed for interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. However, these two methods are asymptotic procedures and their performance in finite sample sizes has not been thoroughly investigated. We propose to use the concept of generalized pivotal quantities (GPQs) to construct an exact confidence interval for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. A simulation study is conducted to empirically investigate the probability coverage and expected length of the three methods for various combinations of sample sizes, values of the area under the ROC curve and correlations. Simulation results demonstrate that the exact confidence interval based on the concept of GPQs provides not only sufficient probability coverage but also reasonable expected length. Numerical examples using published data sets illustrate the proposed method.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2007

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2007

Sample size determination for logistic regression revisited.

There is no consensus on the approach to compute the power and sample size with logistic regression. Some authors use the likelihood ratio test; some use the test on proportions; some suggest various approximations to handle the multivariate case. We advocate the use of the Wald test since the Z-score is routinely used for statistical significance testing of regression coefficients. The null-variance formula became popular from early studies, which contradicts modern software, which utilizes the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), when the variance of the MLE is estimated at the MLE, not at the null. We derive general Wald-based power and sample size formulas for logistic regression and then apply them to binary exposure and confounder to obtain a closed-form expression. These formulas are applied to minimize the total sample size in a case-control study to achieve a given power by optimizing the ratio of controls to cases. Approximately, the optimal number of controls to cases is equal to the square root of the alternative odds ratio. Our sample size and power calculations can be carried out online at www.dartmouth.edu/ approximately eugened.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗