Disability is associated with catastrophizing and not with pain intensity in patients with low back pain: A retrospective study.

Andrés Pierobon, Ignacio Raguzzi, Santiago Soliño, Sandra Salzberg, Gabriel Pierobon, Tomás Vuoto, Juan Sebastián Vera Amor, Camila Snaider, Lucia Castro
{"title":"Disability is associated with catastrophizing and not with pain intensity in patients with low back pain: A retrospective study.","authors":"Andrés Pierobon,&nbsp;Ignacio Raguzzi,&nbsp;Santiago Soliño,&nbsp;Sandra Salzberg,&nbsp;Gabriel Pierobon,&nbsp;Tomás Vuoto,&nbsp;Juan Sebastián Vera Amor,&nbsp;Camila Snaider,&nbsp;Lucia Castro","doi":"10.1002/pri.1867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability at a global scale. The development and chronicity of LBP are influenced by multiple factors, and among them is catastrophizing. We are unaware of the impact that catastrophizing may have on pain and disability in our population. We also lack the tools that allow us to determine in which cases catastrophizing should be assessed. The primary objective is to compare the disability and pain intensity values at baseline in low back pain patients with high and low catastrophizing. The secondary objectives are to analyse the correlation between variables and determine disability variance, and develop a prediction model to identify patients with high catastrophizing.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This is a retrospective study. We included the baseline data of patients with LBP. A PCS score ≥ 23 was classified as \"high catastrophizing.\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total 121 medical sheets were analysed. Patients with high catastrophizing showed greater disability, with no differences in pain intensity. The PCS value explained 20% of the variance of disability, and pain was 1%. A cut-off point of 11 in the RMQ allowed us to identify patients with high and low catastrophizing, with an accuracy of 76.67%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBP patients with high catastrophizing reported greater disability than those with low catastrophizing, with no differences as to pain intensity. The PCS was the most relevant variable to explain variability in the RMQ. The RMQ allowed us to identify patients with high and low catastrophizing.</p>","PeriodicalId":519522,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy","volume":" ","pages":"e1867"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/pri.1867","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.1867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Objective: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability at a global scale. The development and chronicity of LBP are influenced by multiple factors, and among them is catastrophizing. We are unaware of the impact that catastrophizing may have on pain and disability in our population. We also lack the tools that allow us to determine in which cases catastrophizing should be assessed. The primary objective is to compare the disability and pain intensity values at baseline in low back pain patients with high and low catastrophizing. The secondary objectives are to analyse the correlation between variables and determine disability variance, and develop a prediction model to identify patients with high catastrophizing.

Method: This is a retrospective study. We included the baseline data of patients with LBP. A PCS score ≥ 23 was classified as "high catastrophizing."

Results: A total 121 medical sheets were analysed. Patients with high catastrophizing showed greater disability, with no differences in pain intensity. The PCS value explained 20% of the variance of disability, and pain was 1%. A cut-off point of 11 in the RMQ allowed us to identify patients with high and low catastrophizing, with an accuracy of 76.67%.

Conclusion: LBP patients with high catastrophizing reported greater disability than those with low catastrophizing, with no differences as to pain intensity. The PCS was the most relevant variable to explain variability in the RMQ. The RMQ allowed us to identify patients with high and low catastrophizing.

残疾与下腰痛患者的灾难化有关,而与疼痛强度无关:一项回顾性研究
目的:在全球范围内,腰痛(LBP)是导致残疾的主要原因。腰痛的发生与慢性受多种因素的影响,其中灾变是影响因素之一。我们没有意识到灾难化可能对我们人群中的疼痛和残疾造成的影响。我们还缺乏工具,使我们能够确定在哪些情况下应该评估灾变。主要目的是比较高、低灾难化腰痛患者的残疾和疼痛强度基线值。次要目标是分析变量之间的相关性,确定残疾方差,并建立预测模型来识别高灾变患者。方法:回顾性研究。我们纳入了腰痛患者的基线数据。PCS得分≥23分为“高灾变”。结果:共对121张医用单进行分析。高灾难化患者表现出更大的残疾,但疼痛强度无差异。PCS值解释了残疾方差的20%,疼痛解释了1%。RMQ的截断点为11,使我们能够识别高灾难化和低灾难化的患者,准确率为76.67%。结论:高灾难化的下腰痛患者比低灾难化的下腰痛患者有更大的残疾,但疼痛强度无差异。PCS是解释RMQ可变性最相关的变量。RMQ使我们能够识别高灾难化和低灾难化的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信