Responsiveness of the Short-Form 36 and Oswestry Disability Questionnaire in Chronic Nonspecific Low Back and Lower Limb Pain Treated With Customized Foot Orthotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study reports the responsiveness of the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) to treatment with customized foot orthotics. METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients presenting to a primary care clinic with chronic (>3 months), nonspecific, low back pain and/or soft tissue lower limb disorders completed the SF-36 and ODQ before and 6 weeks after prescription of customized foot orthotics. Locations of any pain in the lower half of the body (including the low back), age, sex, and duration of the most chronic pain were recorded. Responsiveness statistics of the ODQ and SF-36 physical and mental summary scores were calculated, as was correlation among these scores and the self-reported pain improvement scores. RESULTS: All subjects completed the baseline and 6-week questionnaires. The mean age of the sample was 53.9 +/- 12.9 years, with 57% men and 43% women. The mean duration of the most chronic pain symptom was 14 +/- 14 months (range, 3-60 months). The mean ODQ score at baseline was 42.8% +/- 14. 8% and at 6 weeks was 16.6% +/- 5.0%. The physical component score of the SF-36 was 39.8 +/- 5.0 at baseline and at 6 weeks was 47.3 +/- 3.8. The mental component score of the SF-36 at baseline was 45.7 +/- 6.1 and at 6 weeks was 47.9 +/- 5.0. The responsiveness of the ODQ was calculated to be 9.40, the responsiveness being 1.77 for the physical component score of the SF-36 and 0.24 for the mental component score of the SF-36. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, the ODQ and the physical component of the SF-36 appear to be responsive to treatment effects, with the ODQ having the highest responsiveness. The ODQ may be a useful outcome measure in trials of the effectiveness of customized foot orthotics in patients with nonspecific, chronic low back and/or soft tissue lower limb pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".