ANALYSIS OF THE TIME TO RELIEVING PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN VIA COX PROPORTIONAL HAZARD MODEL

Authors

  • Jéssica Ferreira Silva Departamento de Estatística Universidade de Brasília (UnB) Brasília/DF Brasil
  • Richard Eloin Liebano Departamento de Fisioterapia Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar) São Carlos/SP Brasil
  • Juliana Barbosa Corrêa Departamento de Fisioterapia Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar) São Carlos/SP Brasil
  • Raul Yukihiro Matsushita Departamento de Estatística Universidade de Brasília (UnB) Brasília/DF Brasil
  • Eduardo Yoshio Nakano Departamento de Estatística Universidade de Brasília (UnB) Brasília/DF Brasil

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X24102

Keywords:

Survival analysis, censored data, electrical simulation, low back pain

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the time to relieving pain intensity in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain treated by interferential current. Knowledge of the number of sessions needed for relieving pain intensity is very important because it can be used as a measure of treatment effectiveness, and assists the physiotherapist in choosing the best treatment to be used. The analysis was conducted on a sample of 150 patients with non-specific chronic low back pain, using the Cox proportional hazard model. All analysis were performed by the free software R.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AIRAKSINEN O.; BROX J. I.; CEDRASCHI C.; HILDEBRANDT J.; KLABER-MOFFETT J.; KOVACS F., et al. Chapter 4. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur. Spine J. Suppl 2:S192- 300, 2006.

BRUNELLO, G. H. V; NAKANO, E. Y. Inferência bayesiana no modelo weibull discreto em dados com presença de censura. TEMA - Tend. Mat. Apl. Comput., v.16, n.2, p.97-110, 2015.

CARRASCO, C. G.; TUTIA, M. H.; NAKANO, E. Y. Intervalos de confiança para os parâmetros do modelo geométrico com inflação de zeros. TEMA - Tend. Mat. Apl. Comput., v.13, n.3, p.247-255, 2012.

CORRÊA J. B.; COSTA L. O.; OLIVEIRA N. T.; LIMA W. P.; SLUKA K. A.; LIEBANO R. E. Effects of the carrier frequency of interferential current on pain modulation and central hypersensitivity in people with chronic nonspecific low back pain: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eur. J. Pain. 2016. [Epub ahead of print]

COSTA L. O.; MAHER C. G.; LATIMER J.; HODGES P. W.; HERBERT R. D.; REFSHAUGE K. M., et al. Motor control exercise for chronic low back pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Phys. Ther, v. 89, n.12, p.1275-86, 2009.

COX, D. R. Regression models and life tables (with discussions). J.R. Stat. Soc. B, v.34, n.2, p.187-202, 1972.

COX, D. R.; SNELL, E. J. A general definition of residuals. J.R. Stat. Soc. B, v.30, n.2, p.248-275, 1968.

DELITTO A; GEORGE S. Z; VAN DILLEN L. R.; WHITMAN J. M.; SOWA G.; SHEKELLE P., et al. Low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. v.42, n.4,:A1-57, 2012.

FACCI L. M.; NOWOTNY J. P.; TORMEM F.; TREVISANI V. F. Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial. Sao Paulo Med. J. v.129, n.4:206-16, 2011.

FUENTES J. P, ARMIJO OLIVO S., MAGEE D. J., GROSS D. P. Effectiveness of interferential current therapy in the management of musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys. Ther. v.90, n.9, p.1219-38,2010.

GRAMBSCH, P. M.; THERNEAU, T. M. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals.Biometrika, v.81, n.3, p.515-526, 1994.

KAPLAN, E. L.; MEIER, P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., v.53,n.282, p.457-481, 1958.

LAWLESS, J. F. Statistical models and methods for lifetime data. 2.ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2003

MAIA, M. A.; NAKANO, E. Y. Análise do tempo até a re-hospitalização de pacientes com esquizofrenia via modelo de riscos proporcionais de Cox. Semina: Ciências Exatas e Tecnológicas, v.37, n.2, p.51-58, 2016.

NAKANO, E. Y.; CARRASCO, C. G. Uma avaliação do uso de um modelo contínuo na análise de dados discretos de sobrevivência. TEMA - Tend. Mat. Apl. Comput., v.7, n.1, p.91-100, 2006.

NAKANO, E. Y.; CUNHA, J. F. Análise do efeito da camuflagem no tempo de segregação em regiões texturizadas utilizando o modelo de riscos proporcionais de Cox. Semina: Ciências Exatas e Tecnológicas, v.33, n.2, p.141-148, 2012.

NETER, J.; WASSERMAN, W.; KUTNER, M. H. Applied Linear Regression Models. 3.ed, Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1990.

OSTELO, R. W.; de VET, H. C. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol., v.19, n.4, p.593-607, 2005.

R CORE TEAM. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org, 2016.

SANTOS, R. O; NAKANO, E. Y. Análise do tempo de permanência de trabalhadores no mercado de trabalho do Distrito Federal via modelo de riscos proporcionais de Cox e Log-normal. Rev. Bras. Biom., v.33, n.4, p.570-584, 2015.

SCHOENFELD, D. Partial Residuals for the proportional hazard regression model. Biometrika, v.69, n.1, p.329- 241, 1982.

TULDER, M. V. European guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur. Spine J. (15(Suppl 2)):134-35, 2006.

Downloads

Published

2017-05-23

How to Cite

Silva, J. F., Liebano, R. E., Corrêa, J. B., Matsushita, R. Y., & Nakano, E. Y. (2017). ANALYSIS OF THE TIME TO RELIEVING PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN VIA COX PROPORTIONAL HAZARD MODEL. Ciência E Natura, 39(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X24102

Issue

Vol. 39 No. 2 (2017)

Section

Statistics

License

To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. 

Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

In particular, 

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.