Skip to main content

Table 3 Predictive models for improvement

From: Predicting the evolution of neck pain episodes in routine clinical practice

a. Predictive model for the improvement of neck pain (n = 2372).a,b

Variables

Odds ratio

p

Frequency in bootstrapping validationc (100)

(I.C. 95%)

Being treated with neuro-reflexotherapy

9.90 (6.81; 14.38)

< 0.001

100

Pain being chronic (≥ 90 days)

0.53 (0.41; 0.70)

< 0.001

98

Baseline intensity of arm pain (VAS)d

0.93 (0.90; 0.97)

< 0.001

95

Employment status (ref. working)

 Non worker

0.87 (0.69; 1.10)

0.259

94

 Receiving financial compensation for neck pain

0.48 (0.33; 0.69)

< 0.001

94

Signs of disc degeneration on imaging

0.77 (0.62; 0.95)

0.017

68

Clinical diagnosis (ref. nonspecific pain)

 Spinal stenosis

0.78 (0.39; 1.56)

0.482

63

 Disc herniation/protusion

0.63 (0.49; 0.81)

< 0.001

63

Female

0.77 (0.61; 0.97)

0.030

59

Baseline intensity of neck pain (VAS)d

1.06 (1.00; 1.13)

0.041

38

Constant

0.84 (0.60; 1.18)

0.325

b. Predictive model for the improvement of pain referred down into the arm (n = 1938).e,f

Variables

Odds ratio

p

Frequency in bootstrapping validationg (100)

(I.C. 95%)

Being treated with neuro-reflexotherapy

16.96 (10.90; 26.37)

< 0.001

100

Baseline intensity of arm pain (VAS) h

1.17 (1.10; 1.24)

< 0.001

96

Pain being chronic (≥ 90 days)

0.57 (0.43; 0.75)

< 0.001

84

Signs of disc degeneration on imaging

0.68 (0.54; 0.85)

0.001

83

Baseline intensity of neck pain (VAS)d

0.91 (0.85; 0.98)

0.010

73

Clinical diagnosis (ref. nonspecific pain)

 Spinal stenosis

0.57 (0.52; 0.86)

0.088

56

 Disc herniation/protrusion

0.67 (0.52; 0.86)

0.002

56

Constant

0.31 (0.19; 1.24)

< 0.001

c. Predictive model for the improvement for disability (n = 983).i,j

 

Variables

Odds ratio

P

Frequency in bootstrapping validationk (100)

(I.C. 95%)

Baseline intensity of arm pain (VAS)l

0.89 (0.85; 0.93)

< 0.001

99

Being treated with neuro-reflexotherapy

2.92 (1.90; 4.49)

< 0.001

97

Employment status (ref. working)

 Non worker

0.69 (0.49; 0.97)

0.031

90

 Receiving financial compensation for neck pain

0.45 (0.28; 0.73)

0.001

90

Baseline disability (NDI)m

1.02 (1.01; 1.02)

0.002

84

Signs of facet joint degeneration on imaging

0.60 (0.39; 0.93)

0.023

73

Pain being chronic (≥ 90 days)

0.65 (0.46; 0.91)

0.012

56

Constant

0.89 (0.59; 1.34)

0.589

  1. aThe number of patients who reported some degree of pain referred down to the arm (AP) at baseline (VAS > 0), was 2961,6 had baseline scores below the cut-off for considering potential improvements as “clinically relevant”, 583 had missing data at the baseline or the follow-up assessment, and 2372 were included in the model
  2. bAUC = 0.718 (95%CI; 0.694–0.742). Hosmer-Lemeshow: chi2 = 0.383
  3. cOverfitting = 0.020. Shrinkage factor = 0.906
  4. dVAS: Visual Analog Scale (range from better to worse; 0–10)
  5. eThe number of patients who reported some degree of neck pain (VAS > 0) at baseline, was 2961, 18 had baseline scores below the cut-off for considering potential improvements as “clinically relevant”, 238 had missing data at the baseline or the follow-up assessment, and 2372 were included in the model
  6. fAUC = 0.717 (95%CI; 0.691–0.742). Hosmer-Lemeshow: chi2 = 0.369
  7. gOverfitting = 0.030. Shrinkage factor = 0.882
  8. hVAS: Visual Analog Scale (range from better to worse; 0–10)
  9. iThe number of patients who reported some degree of disability at baseline (NDI > 0), was 1500,49 had baseline scores below the cut-off for considering potential improvements as “clinically relevant”, 468 had missing data at the baseline or the follow-up assessment, and 983 were included in the model
  10. jAUC = 0.677 (95%CI; 0.644–0.711). Hosmer-Lemeshow: chi2 = 0.128
  11. kOverfitting = 0.037. Shrinkage factor = 0.787
  12. lVAS: Visual Analog Scale (range from better to worse; 0–10)
  13. mScore on the Neck Disability Index (range from better to worse, 0–100)