Monitors low back pain outcomes and includes 21 self-reported items and 4 performance-based measures, covering 3 clinical illness domains: back and leg pain, disability, and physical impairment.
21 self-reported
4 performance-based
15-20 minutes
Joshua White, MPT, ATC, MTC
A modified version of the questionnaire, omitting the physical impairment items, has been developed for mail or phone interviews.
It is recommended not to use the total sum score as sub-scores from the 3 domains provide valuable information and are not influenced by weighting bias (Muller, Duetz, Roeder, & Greenough, 2004).
The scale is available in Danish, English, Turkish, German, and Polish. The test has been validated in Danish.
The data presented reflects the MCID of the Danish version of the scale.
Low Back Pain: (Lauridsen, Hartvigsen, Manniche, Korsholm, & Grunnet-Nilsson, 2006; n = 191 participants with low back pain and/or leg pain, mean age = 44-47; the data presented reflect the MCID of the Danish version)
10 points for pain component
17 points for disability component
Inconclusive data for physical impairment component
|
|
All LBP Patients (n = 191) |
Outpatient Hospital Clinic LBP Patients (n = 94) |
Chiropractic Clinic LBP Patients (n = 97) |
|
MCID: (LBPRS – Pain) |
10 |
20 |
13 |
|
MCID: (LBPRS – Disability) |
17 |
17 |
17 |
|
MCID: (LBPRS – Impairment) |
No Data |
No Data |
No Data |
Low Back Pain (Chiropractic Clinic): (Lauridsen et al., 2006; n = 94 participants with low back pain and/or leg pain within the primary sector; mean age = 44)
20 for pain component
17 for disability component
Inconclusive data for physical impairment component
Low Back Pain (Outpatient Hospital Clinic): (Lauridsen et al., 2006; n = 97 participants with low back pain and/or leg pain who had not responded to treatment in the primary sector; mean age = 47)
13 points for pain component
17 points for disability component
Inconclusive data for physical impairment component
Low Back Pain Only: (Lauridsen et al., 2006; N = 104; n = 75 participants with low back pain in the primary sector (Chiropractic Clinic), mean age = 44 (18-76) years; n = 29 participants with low back pain who had not responded to treatment in the primary sector (Outpatient Hospital Clinic))
12 points for pain component
17 points for disability component
Inconclusive data for physical impairment component
Low Back Pain +/- Leg Pain: (Lauridsen et al., 2006; N = 104; n = 75 participants with low back pain and/or leg pain within the primary sector (Chiropractic Clinic), mean age = 44 (18-76) years; n = 29 participants with low back pain and/or leg pain who had not responded to treatment in the primary sector (Outpatient Hospital Clinic))
17 points for pain component
17 points for disability component
Inconclusive data for physical impairment component
Low Back Pain: (Lauridsen et al., 2006)
Low Back Pain Only
Mean (SD) Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) score for disability component = 0.8, range = 0.4 to 1.3
Mean (SD) Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) score for pain component = 1.3, range = 1.0 to 1.6
Low Back and Leg Pain
Mean (SD) Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) score for disability component = 0.8, range = 0.3 to 1.2
Mean (SD) Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS) score for pain component = 1.3, range = 0.7 to 1.9
Low Back Pain: (Manniche et al., 1994; n = 58)
Low Back Pain: (Lauridsen et al., 2006)
Excellent for sub-scores: Cronbach's alpha = 0.89 to 0.95
Excellent for total scores: Cronbach's alpha = 0.96
Low Back Pain: (Christensen et al., 1993; n = 58 patients with severe low back pain; mean age = 14 to 60 months after surgery)
Excellent correlations with Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 18 months after therapy (r = 0.82); Authors were unable to establish the values of the two outcome measures
Excellent correlation with German version of Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) (r = 0.91, p < 0.001)
Low Back Pain: (Maniche et al., 1993; n = 261; mean age = 51)
Excellent correlation between LBPRS and Patient’s Global Assessment (r = .97)
Excellent correlation between LBPRS and Doctor’s Global Assessment (r = .93)
Low Back Pain: (Nuhr, Crevenna, Quittan, Auterith, Wiesinger, Brockow, & Ebenbichler, 2004; n = 126 patients with low back pain from all German speaking countries in Europe; mean age = 60, range of 20-87 years old).
Excellent correlation (r = 0.91, p < 0.001) between the German version of the LBPRS and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) (Nuhr et al., 2004; Smeets, K?ke, Lin, Ferreira, & Demoulin, 2011)
Low Back Pain: (Kalidindi, Patro, & Sharma, 2016; n = 172 patients with chronic low back pain presenting to tertiary care center in India; aged 18-65; follow up at 3 and 6 months after common rehabilitation and analgesic protocol)
Excellent with no floor and ceiling noted for LBPRS scores in various categories (local LBP only, LBP + pain above knee, LBP + pain below knee, BLP with signs of nerve root involvement) at both 3 and 6 months
Low Back Pain: Specific Patient Population Identified Below; (Lauridsen et al., 2006)
Patients reporting an “important improvement” and “no change” groups were compared. The Standardized Response Mean (SRM) calculations are reported below:
|
Primary Sector (n=62) |
N Value |
Important Improvement SRMraw (95% CI) |
No Change SRMRAW (95% CI) |
|
Chiropractic Clinic LBPRS - Disability |
n = 62 |
0.8 (0.4-1.2) |
0.5 (0.1-0.9) |
|
Chiropractic Clinic LBPRS - Pain |
n = 62 |
1.4 (1.1-1.6) |
0.6 (0.1-1.1) |
|
Outpatient Hospital Clinic LBPRS - Disability |
n = 19 |
0.8 (0.4-1.3) |
0.3 (0.0-0.6) |
|
Outpatient Hospital Clinic LBPRS - Pain |
n = 18 |
1.1 (0.3-1.8) |
0.3 (-0.1-0.5) |
|
Low Back Pain Only LBPRS – Disability |
n = 57 |
0.8 (0.4-1.3) |
0.5 (0.0-1.0) |
|
Low Back Pain Only LBPRS – Pain |
n = 57 |
1.3 (1.0-1.6) |
0.5 (0.0-1.0) |
|
Low Back Pain +/- Leg Pain LBPRS - Disability |
n = 24 |
0.8 (0.3-1.2) |
0.3 (0.0-0.7) |
|
Low Back Pain +/- Leg Pain LBPRS - Pain |
n = 23 |
1.3 (0.7-1.9) |
0.3 (0.0-0.6) |
Christensen, T. H., Bliddal, H., Hansen, S. E., Jensen, E. M., Jensen, H., Jensen, R., & Bay, H. (1993). Severe low-back pain. I: Clinical assessment of two weeks conservative therapy. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, 22(1), 25-29.
Kalidindi, K. K. V., Patro, D. K., & Sharma, D. (2016). Significance of sub grouping patients with chronic low back pain in management decisions: A prospective study. International Journal of Orthopedic Sciences, 2(4c), 171-175.
Lauridsen, H. H., Hartvigsen, J., Manniche, C., Korsholm, L., & Grunnet-Nilsson, N. (2006). Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 7, 82.
Manniche, C., Asmussen, K., Lauritsen, B., Vinterberg, H., Kreiner, S., & Jordan, A. (1994). Low Back Pain Rating Scale: Validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain. Pain, 57(3), 317-326.
Muller, U., Duetz, M. S., Roeder, C., & Greenough, C. G. (2004). Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part I: Validation. European Spine Journal, 13(4), 301-313.
Muller, U., Roeder, C., Dubs, L., Duetz, M. S., & Greenough, C. G. (2004). Condition-specific outcome measures for low back pain. Part II: scale construction. European Spine Journal, 13(4), 314-324.
Nuhr, M., Crevenna, R., Quittan, M., Auterith, A., Wiesinger, G., Brockow, T., & ... Ebenbichler, G. (2004). Cross-cultural adaption of the manniche questionnaire for german-speaking low back pain patients. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 36(6), 267-272.
Smeets, R., K?ke, A., Lin, C. W., Ferreira, M., & Demoulin, C. (2011). Measures of function in low back pain/disorders: Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Progressive Isoinertial Lifting Evaluation (PILE), Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ). Arthritis Care & 嫩B研究院, 63(Suppl 11), S158-173.
We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.