Table 2.
Improvements of outcome measurements
| SMD (z-differences) classified | N [%] | Better ( +) (%) | Equal ( =) (%) | Worse (−) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CROM (1) | FTF+ | 50.9 | 46.8 | 2.3 |
| PROMs (6) | EQ5D Health (EQ-VAS) | 54.2 | 23.3 | 22.5 |
| EQ5D TTO | 52.9 | 33.2 | 13.9 | |
| NPRS | 61.8 | 20.8 | 17.5 | |
| HAQ++ | 31.6 | 54.7 | 13.7 | |
| ODI | 57.2 | 28.1 | 14.7 | |
| Mean PROMs | 62.3 | 23.8 | 13.9 | |
| Overall MQO (PROMs and CROM-FTF) | 68.9 | 24.8 | 6.3 | |
CROM-FTF, mean of PROMs and the overall medical outcome (MQO; mean of PROMs and CROM-FTF) are highlighted in bold
Changes between admission and discharge (categorical presentation: better, equal, worse); The threshold used was an average z-difference (SMD) of > 0.20. + …Results for subsample without 73 LBP Patients who had optimal FTF values (0) for t1 and t2: 62.4% better, 34.8% equal and 2.8% worse (n1 = 322); + + … Results for the subsample also without (not the same) 73 LBP patients who had optimal HAQ scores (0) for t1 and t2: 38.8% better, 44.4% equal and 16.8% worse (n2 = 322)
Normalized changes between admission (t1) to discharge (t2) are revealed by examining the effect sizes (z, SMD) and the number of patients (n [%]), which could be improved in clinically relevant ways [16]. Based on the value distributions, the individual outcome parameters were transformed into z-values. By means of z-standardization, differently scaled quantities were summarized, and the changes were uniformly quantified. Z-differences from 0.00 ± 0.20 were classified as equal (no changes) [16, 36]