Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How much does the Dallas Pain Questionnaire score have to improve to indicate that patients with chronic low back pain feel better or well?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ) assesses the impact of low back pain (LBP) on four components (0–100) of daily life. We estimated the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) values of DPQ in LBP patients.

Methods

142 patients with LBP lasting for at least 4 weeks completed a battery of questionnaires at baseline and 6 months later. Questions for MCII addressed patient-reported response to treatment at 6 months on a five-point Likert scale, while a yes/no question concerning satisfaction with present state was used to determine PASS. MCII was computed as the difference in mean DPQ scores between patients reporting treatment as effective vs. patients reporting treatment as not effective, and PASS was computed as the third quartile of the DPQ score among patients who reported being satisfied with their present state.

Results

MCII values were 22, 23, 2 and 10 for daily activities, work and leisure, social interest, and anxiety/depression, respectively. PASS values were 29, 23, 20 and 21 for the four components, respectively. The PASS total score threshold of 24 correctly classified 84.1 % of the patients who reported being unsatisfied with their present state, and 74.7 % of patients reported being satisfied.

Conclusions

These values give information of paramount importance for clinicians in interpreting change in DPQ values over time. Authors should be encouraged to report the percentage of patients who reach MCII and PASS values in randomized clinical trials and cohort studies to help clinicians to interpret clinical results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Driscoll T, Jacklyn G, Orchard J et al (2014) The global burden of occupationally related low back pain: estimates from the global burden of disease. Ann Rheum Dis 73:975–981. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Henschke N, van Enst A, Froud R, Ostelo RW (2014) Responder analyses in randomised controlled trials for chronic low back pain: an overview of currently used methods. Eur Spine J 23:772–778

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bombardier C, Hayden J, Beaton D (2001) Minimal clinically important difference. Low back pain: oucomes measures. J Rheumatol 28:431–438

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tubach F, Wells GA, Ravaud P, Dougados M (2005) Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues. J Rheumatol 32:2025–2029

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Beaton D et al (2007) Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. J Rheumatol 34:1188–1193

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kvien T, Heiberg T, Hagen K (2007) Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis 66 (supp 1):iii40–iii41

  7. Van der Roer N, Ostelo R, Bekkering G et al (2006) Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with non specific low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa) 31:578–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lawlis GF, Cuencas R, Selby D, MCoy CE (1989) The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 14:511–516

  9. Marty M, Blotman F, Avouac B, Rozenberg S, Valat JP (1998) Validation of the French version of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire in chronic low back pain patients. Rev Rhum Engl Ed 65:126–134 Erratum in: Rev Rhum Engl Ed 65:363

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Genevay S, Cedraschi C, Marty M et al (2012) Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted French version of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in patients with low back pain. Eur Spine J 21:130–137

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Genevay S, Marty M, Courvoisier D et al (2014) Core Outcome Measure Index for low back patient: full validation of the French version. Eur Spine J 23:2097–2104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR et al (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Coste J, Le Parc JM, Berge E, Delecoeuillerie G, Paolaggi JB (1993) French validation of a disability rating scale for the evaluation of low back pain (EIFEL questionnaire). Rev Rhum Ed Fr. 60:335–341 Article in French

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Perneger TV, Combescure C, Courvoisier DS (2010) General population reference values for the French version of the EuroQol EQ-5D health utility instrument. Value Health 13:631–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Koke AJ (1996) Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 65:71–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ostelo R, de Wet H (2005) Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19:593–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maughan EF, Lewis JS (2010) Outcome measures in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 19:1484–1494

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, McDermott MP et al (2009) Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 146:238–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Nukléus team and, in particular, Mrs V. Gordin and M. Demonnet, for their help and logistic support. We also although wish to thank the members of the Spine section of the French Rheumatology Society for their support in recruiting patients. The authors thank David Marsh for valuable help in editing the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no relationship with the organization that sponsored the research. This study was supported by an unrestricted scientific grant from Pfizer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de Rhumatologie, C.H.U. Henri Mondor, Créteil, France

    M. Marty

  2. Service d’épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland

    D. Courvoisier

  3. Service de Rhumatologie, C.H.U Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France

    V. Foltz & S. Rozenberg

  4. Unité du Dos, CHU Dinant Godinne UcL Namur, Dinant, Belgium

    G. Mahieu

  5. Département des Sciences de la Motricité, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium

    C. Demoulin

  6. Clinique de Médecine Physique et Réadaptation, CHU Brugmann, Brussels, Belgium

    A. Gierasimowicz

  7. Appareil Locomoteur, CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland

    M. Norberg & P. de Goumoëns

  8. Réhabilitation Médicale, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland

    C. Cedraschi

  9. Rhumatologie, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland

    S. Genevay

Authors
  1. M. Marty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Courvoisier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V. Foltz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Mahieu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Demoulin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Gierasimowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Norberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. de Goumoëns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. C. Cedraschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. S. Rozenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. S. Genevay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Section Rachis de la Société Française de Rhumatologie

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Marty.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 112 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 980 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marty, M., Courvoisier, D., Foltz, V. et al. How much does the Dallas Pain Questionnaire score have to improve to indicate that patients with chronic low back pain feel better or well?. Eur Spine J 25, 304–309 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3957-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3957-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation