Skip to main content

Table 1 Pretreatment characteristics and univariate pain prediction modelsa

From: Prediction of pain outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of dose–response of spinal manipulation for the care of chronic low back pain

 

Baseline Mean (SD) (N = 391)

Responder model significance

Future Pain Intensity model significance

Dose (per 6 spinal manipulation visits)

 

Time (in weeks

   

Pain/Disability

   

 Pain intensity (0–100 scale)

51.6 (17.2)

 

 Functional disability (0–100)

45.3 (22.7)

 

 Pain unpleasantness (0–100)

41.4 (21.4)

 

 Days with pain (last 4 wk)

24.1 ( 5.2)

 

 Days with disability (last 4 wk)

6.8 ( 7.6)

 

 Duration (yr)

11.8 ( 9.8)

  

Sociodemographics

   

 Age (yr)

41.3 (14.1)

  

 Female, % (n)

50 % (196)

  

 Non-white or Hispanic, % (n)

15 % (58)

  

 College degree, % (n)

56 % (219)

  

 Income $40 K or less, % (n)

57 % (222)

  

General Health

   

 Comorbidities (#)

0.9 ( 1.1)

 

 Smoking, % (n)

11 % (43)

  

 SF-12 physical health componentb

43.3 ( 8.9)

 

 SF-12 mental health componentb

48.9 (10.5)

  

 EuroQol – VAS (0–100 visual analog scale)

70.9 (15.8)

 EuroQol 5D – mobility (1–3)

1.4 ( 0.5)

 

 EuroQol 5D – self-care (1–3)

1.2 ( 0.4)

 EuroQol 5D – usual activities (1–3)

1.7 ( 0.5)

 

 EuroQol 5D – pain (1–3)

2.0 ( 0.2)

 

 EuroQol 5D – anxiety/depression (1–3)

1.4 ( 0.5)

 

Psychosocial

   

 FABQ Work beliefs (0–100)

32.9 (21.8)

 

 FABQ Activity beliefs (0–100)

56.0 (20.3)

 

 Confidence in treatment success (−6 - +6)

0.2 ( 0.8)

  

Objective Physical Exam c

   

 Lumbar ROM: flexion

43.2 (16.3)

  

 Lumbar ROM: extension

15.1 (10.2)

  

 Lumbar ROM: right lateral bending

18.6 ( 9.4)

  

 Lumbar ROM: left lateral bending

19.1 ( 8.9)

  

 LBP: Flexion (0–10)

2.3 ( 2.4)

 LBP: Extension (0–10)

3.0 ( 2.4)

 

 LBP: Right lateral bending (0–10)

2.7 ( 2.4)

 LBP: Left lateral bending (0–10)

2.6 ( 2.3)

 LBP: sum for 4 lumbar ROM 0–10 pain scores

10.7 ( 7.9)

 LBP: maximum of 4 lumbar ROM pain scores

4.0 ( 2.3)

 

 LBP: right – left lateral bending

0.1 ( 1.9)

  

 LBP: |right – left lateral bending|

1.2 ( 1.5)

  

 LBP: sum for right and left lateral bending pain scores

5.3 ( 4.3)

 LBP: maximum of right and left lateral bending pain scores

3.2 ( 2.4)

 Modified Schober Test (cm)

5.7 ( 2.0)

  

 Lumbar hypomobility: L1, % (n)

54 % (209)

 

 Lumbar hypomobility: L2, % (n)

52 % (200)

  

 Lumbar hypomobility: L3, % (n)

49 % (189)

  

 Lumbar hypomobility: L4, % (n)

49 % (191)

  

 Lumbar hypomobility: L5, % (n)

64 % (248)

  

 Total hypomobile joints: L1 thru L5

2.7 ( 1.3)

  

 Pain Pressure Threshold: right L1-L2

6.1 ( 2.8)

  

 Pain Pressure Threshold: left L1-L2

6.2 ( 2.9)

  

 Pain Pressure Threshold: right L3-L4

5.9 ( 3.0)

  

 Pain Pressure Threshold: left L3-L4

6.0 ( 3.2)

  

 Pain Pressure Threshold: right L5-S1

5.8 ( 3.2)

 

 Pain Pressure Threshold: left L5-S1

5.7 ( 3.3)

 

 Pain Pressure Threshold: minimum of 6 measures

4.5 ( 2.5)

 

  1. OR Odds ratio, r Pearson’s correlation coefficient, β regression coefficient, VAS visual analog scale, FABQ fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire, ROM range of motion, LBP low back pain
  2. Variables with a statistically significant association with outcome, p-value < 0.05, after adjusting for dose
  3. aLogistic and linear longitudinal regressions were adjusted for dose and were fitted using generalized estimating equations to account for correlation across time points. Only the statistically significant variables (p < .05) in this table are used as candidates for the subsequent inclusion into the relevant final multivariate prediction models
  4. bScores are standardized to the US general population (mean = 50, SD = 10)
  5. cROM was measured in degrees, LBP during ROM on a 0 to 10 scale for each of the 4 ROMs, and pain pressure threshold in kg. Hypomobility was identified using manual motion palpation