The Pick-up Test for Assessing Performance of a Daily Activity in Patients with Back Pain

REFERENCES

• Deyo RA, Andersson G, Bombardier C, et al. Outcome measures for studying patients with low back pain. Spine 1994;19(18S):2032 S – S6.
   Google Scholar
• Beurskens AJ, de Vet HC, Ko¨ ke AJ, van der Heijden GJ, Knipschild PG. Measuring the func- tional status of patients with low back pain. As- sessment of the quality of four disease-specific questionnaires. Spine 1995;20:1017 – 28.
   Google Scholar
• Croft P. What are the relevant outcome mea- sures for low back pain. Abstracts of keynote lec- tures. The Second International Forum for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Deyo RA. Outcome measurement and instru- ments in low back pain outcomes research: a pro- posal for standardized use in future studies. Abstracts of keynote lectures. The Second Interna- tional Forum for Primary Care Research on Low Back Pain, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Fairbank JCT, Davies JB, Couper J, O’Brian JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability question- naire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271 –3.
   Google Scholar
• Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part 1. Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low- back pain. Spine 1983;8:141 –4.
   Google Scholar
• Deyo RA. Measuring the functional status of patients with low back pain. Arch Phys Med Reha- bil 1988;69:1044 –53.
   Google Scholar
• Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). 1: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473 –83.
   Google Scholar
• Sale´n BA, Spangfort EV, Nygren AL, Nordemar R. The Disability Rating Index: an instrument for the assessment of disability in clinical settings. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:1423 –35.
   Google Scholar
• Holmstro¨m E, Moritz U. Low back pain – correspondence between questionnaire, interview and clinical examination. Scand J Rehabil Med 1991;23:119 –25.
   Google Scholar
• Lindstro¨m I, OÈ hlund C, Nachemson A. Physical performance, pain, pain behavior and subjective disability in patients with subacute low back pain. Scand J Rehabil Med 1995;27:153 –60.
   Google Scholar
• Michel A, Kohlmann T, Raspe H. The associa- tion between clinical findings on physical examina- tion and self-reported severity in back pain. Results of a population-based study. Spine 1997;22:296 -304.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer TG, Smith SS, Keeley J, Mooney V. Quantification of lumbar function. Part 2: Sagittal plane trunk strength in chronic low-back pain pa- tients. Spine 1985;10:765 –72.
   Google Scholar
• McQuade KJ, Turner JA, Buchner DM. Physi- cal fitness and chronic low back pain. An analysis of the relationships among fitness, functional limi- tations, and depression. Clin Orthop 1988;233:198 -204.
   Google Scholar
• Frymoyer JW, Nelson RM, Spangfort E, Wad- dell G. Clinical tests applicable to the study of chronic low-back disability. Spine 1991;16:681 –2.
   Google Scholar
• Ljunggren AE. Low-back pain: strength tests and resistive exercises. In: Harms-Ringdahl K, edi tor. Muscle strength. Edinburgh: Churchill Living- stone, 1993:227 -57.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer T, Tabor J, Bovasso E, Gatchel RJ. Physical progress and residual impairment quantifi- cation after functional restoration. Part I: Lumbar mobility. Spine 1994;19:389 –94.
   Google Scholar
• Brady S, Mayer T, Gatchel RJ. Physical pro- gress and residual impairment quantification after functional restoration. Part II: Isokinetic trunk strength. Spine 1994;19:395 -400.
   Google Scholar
• Ljungquist T, Fransson B, Harms-Ringdahl K, Bjornham A, Nygren A. A physiotherapy test pack- age for assessing back and neck dysfunction – dis- criminative ability for patients versus healthy control subjects. Physiother Res Int 1999;4:123 –40.
   Google Scholar
• Engelberg AL. American Medical Association’s guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment: a standardized approach. In: Mayer TG, Mooney V, Gatchel RJ, editors. Contemporary conservative care for painful spinal disorders. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger 1991:562 -73.
   Google Scholar
• Waddell G, Somerville D, Henderson I, New- ton M. Objective clinical evaluation of physical im- pairment in chronic low back pain. Spine 1992;17:617 –28.
   Google Scholar
• International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva: World Health Or- ganization, 1980.
   Google Scholar
• Jette AM. Diagnosis and classification by physi- cal therapists: a special communication. Phys Ther 1989;69:967 –9.
   Google Scholar
• Jette AM. Outcomes research: shifting the dominant research paradigm in physical therapy. Phys Ther 1995;75:965 –70.
   Google Scholar
• Guccione AA. Physical therapy diagnosis and the relationship between impairments and function. Phys Ther 1991;71:499 –503.
   Google Scholar
• Delitto A. Are measures of function and dis- ability important in low back care? Phys Ther 1994;74:452 –62.
   Google Scholar
• International classification of functioning and disability: ICIDH-2. Beta-2 draft, full version. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Kohlmann T, Raspe H. Die patientennahe Di- agnostik von Functionseinschra¨ nkungen im Alltag. Psychomed 1994;6:21 –7.
   Google Scholar
• Haldorsen EMH, Kronholm K, Skouen JS, Ursin H. Multimodal cognitive behavioral treat- ment of patients sicklisted for musculoskeletal pain: a randomized controlled study. Scand J Rheumatol 1998;27:16 –25.
   Google Scholar
• Haskell WL. Dose – response issues from a bio- logical perspective. In: Bouchard C, Shephard RJ, Stephems T, editors. Physical activity, fitness, and health. International proceedings and consensus statement. United States: Human Kinetics Publish- ers, Inc 1994:1030 -9.
   Google Scholar
• Moffroid MT, Haugh LD, Henry SM, Short B. Distinguishable groups of musculoskeletal low back pain patients and asymptomatic control subjects based on physical measures of the NIOSH Low Back Atlas. Spine 1994;19:1350 –8.
   Google Scholar
• Strand LI, Wie SL. The Sock Test for evaluating activity limitation in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Phys Ther 1999; 79:136 -45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McColl E, Christiansen T, Ko¨ nig-Zahn C. Making the right choice of outcome measure. In: Hutchinson A, Bentzen N, Ko¨ nig-Zahn C, editors. Cross cultural health outcome assessment; a user’s guide. The European Research Group on Health Outcomes, 1996:12 -26.
   Google Scholar
• Norwegian College of General Practitioners. ICPC, ICHPPC-2-Defined, IC-Process-PC. Klas- sifikasjoner og definisjoner for primærhelsetjenesten {Classification and definitions for primary health care}. Otta: TANO, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical re- search. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991:409 -10.
   Google Scholar
• Strand LI, Wisnes AR. The development of a Norwegian pain questionnaire. Pain 1991;46:61 –6.
   Google Scholar
• Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain 1975;1:277 –99.
   Google Scholar
• Stratford PW, Binkley FM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther 1996;76:1109 –23.
   Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of ob- server agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159 –74.
   Google Scholar
• Domholdt E. Physical therapy research. Princi- ples and applications. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993:153 -7.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein JM, Echternach JL. Primer on mea- surement: an introductory guide to measurement is- sues. Alexandria: American Physical Therapy Association, 1993: 61.
   Google Scholar
• Magnussen L. {Normative data for spinal flexi- bility in healthy women aged 30 to 50. A compari- son of spinal flexibility between healthy women and women sicklisted with low back pain}. Mas- ter’s Thesis, University of Bergen, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Waddell G, Main CJ. Beliefs about back pain. In: Waddell G, editor. The back pain revolution. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1998:155 -40.
   Google Scholar
• Watson PJ, Booker CK, Main CJ. Evidence for the role of psychological factors in abnormal paraspinal activity in patients with chronic low back pain. J Musculoskeletal Pain 1997;5:41 –56.
   Google Scholar
• Waddell G, Main CJ. A new clinical model of back pain and disability. In: Waddell G, editor. The back pain revolution. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1998:223 -40.
   Google Scholar
• Bell RD, Hoshizaki TB. Relationships of age and sex with range of motion of seventeen joint actions in humans. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1981;6:202 –6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gomez T, Beach G, Cooke C, Hrudey W, Goy- ert P. Normative database for trunk range of motion, strength, velocity and endurance with the Isostation B-200 Lumbar Dynamometer. Spine 1991;16:15 –21.
   Google Scholar
• Strand LI, Ljunggren AE, Haldorsen EMH. Associations between work status, physical performance and pain at 1-year follow-up in patients with back pain. Spine, in press2000.
   Google Scholar