JORR

The Journal of Orthopedics Research and Rehabilitation welcomes scholarly papers inorthopaedic surgery, physical therapy and rehabilitation, neurosurgery, neurology and clinic anesthesiology and reanimation.

EndNote Style
Index
Original Article
Investigation of the relationship between functional tests and low back pain functional scale in patients with chronic low back pain
Aims: The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between functional scales used to determine the functional level in patients with chronic low back pain and functional tests.
Methods: The study included 39 patients with chronic low back pain. We used the Low Back Pain Functional Scale (LBPFS) as a scale to determine the functional status of patients and the 5-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Test (5-RSTST) and Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT) as functional tests. Pearson correlation test was used for data analysis.
Results: There was a moderate negative correlation between the total score of LBPFS and 5-RSTST (r: -0.427, p < 0.007), and a weak negative correlation between LBPFS and TUGT (r: 0.246, p< 0.05).
Conclusion: LBPFS, which is used to determine the functional level in patients with chronic low back pain, has a moderate negative relationship with 5-RSTST and a weak negative relationship with TUGT. This result shows that LBPFS is insufficient to fully determine the function in patients with chronic low back pain and does not address all the parameters necessary to determine the function. The parts of the structure of LBPFS that are insufficient to determine the function can be reviewed to ensure that it determines the function more consistently. In this way, it is possible to determine the functional level more objectively with only one scale in patients with chronic low back pain who cannot perform functional tests or do not need to perform them.


1. Ramalingam AT, Senthilkumar SN, Hanif SRBM, Rameshbhai SK, Kasim SAM. Movement control impairment tests in patients with low back pain and healthy controls and its correlation with clinical measures. J Indian Assoc Physiother. 2017;11(2):58-65.
2. Meucci RD, Fassa AG, Faria NM. Prevalence of chronic low back pain: systematic review. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:1. doi:10.1590/S0034-8910. 2015049005874
3. World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). Low Back Pain. Date: 29.10.2024, Website address: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/ detail/low-back-pain
4. Erdoğanoğlu Y, G&uuml;nel MK, &Ccedil;etin A. Kronik bel ağrısı olan kadınlarda farklı egzersiz programlarının etkinliğinin araştırılması. Fizyoter Rehabil. 2012;23:125-136.
5. Costa LO, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Clinimetric testing of three self-report outcome measures for low back pain patients in Brazil: which one is the best? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(22):2459-2463. doi:10. 1097/BRS.0b013e3181849dbe
6. Lee CE, Simmonds MJ, Novy DM, Jones S. Self-reports and clinician-measured physical function among patients with low back pain: a comparison. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(2):227-231. doi:10.1053/apmr. 2001.18214
7. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Development and initial validation of the back pain functional scale. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(16):2095-2102. doi:10.1097/00007632-200008150-00015
8. Maras G, Sheidayi S, Yazici G, Yazici MV, Gunaydin G, Citaker S. Cross-cultural adaptation, validity, and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Back Pain Functional Scale. Asian Spine J. 2019;13(4):569-576. doi:10.31616/asj.2018.0284
9. Simmonds MJ, Olson SL, Jones S, et al. Psychometric characteristics and clinical usefulness of physical performance tests in patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(22):2412-2421. doi:10. 1097/00007632-199811150-00011
10. Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using effect size-or why the p value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4(3):279-282. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
11. &Ouml;zden F, Sarı Z, Karaman &Ouml;N, Aydoğmuş H. The effect of video exercise- based telerehabilitation on clinical outcomes, expectation, satisfaction, and motivation in patients with chronic low back pain. Ir J Med Sci. 2022;191(3):1229-1239. doi: 10.1007/s11845-021-02797-8
12. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: pearson. 2013;6:497-516.
13. Stastutor Date :15.12.2024 Web site adress: https://www.statstutor.ac. uk/resources/uploaded/pearsons.pdf
14. Basar S, Citaker S, Kanatli U, Ozturk BY, Kilickap S, Kafa NK. Assessment of function in patients with rotator cuff tears: Functional test versus self-reported questionnaire. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2014;8(4): 107-113. doi:10.4103/0973-6042.145249
15. Wijlhuizen GJ, Ooijendijk W. Measuring disability, the agreement between self evaluation and observation of performance. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21(2):61-67. doi:10.1080/096382899297981
16. Latham NK, Mehta V, Nguyen AM, et al. Performance-based or self-report measures of physical function: which should be used in clinical trials of hip fracture patients? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(11):2146-2155. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.04.016
Volume 3, Issue 1, 2025
Page : 5-8
_Footer