The correlation

between the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and its substitute question (r = 0.46) approximated the value nominated as large (r = 0.50) by Cohen (1992). The substitute question showed the same prognostic properties as the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia in predicting recovery at 1 year follow-up, and even better prognostic properties in predicting severity of leg pain at 1 year follow-up. Although the explained variations of the models decreased when the cut-off point of the outcome pain severity in the leg was set at 2 or 3 instead of 1, the decrease was relatively stable in the models and did not change the conclusions derived from our data. These consistent findings show that it might be feasible to replace ZD1839 the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia by its unique substitute question in predicting outcome at 1 year follow-up in people with sciatica in primary care. Nevertheless, these results need to be further evaluated and validated in additional studies. Extensive psychometric testing of the substitute question for the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia was not done in this present study

as this was not our aim, but will be necessary in future studies. Especially, further testing of the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the substitute question is needed to establish the usefulness of this question in daily clinical practice. Item Response Theory can be applied to determine whether the scales are uni-dimensional and measure the same underlying construct as the substitute questions. No study was found that reported on the prognostic properties of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and EQ-5D in people with sciatica. see more On the other hand, the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (Edwards et al 2007, Jensen et al 2010, Peul et al 2008a) and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (Atlas et al 2006, Edwards et al 2007) are prognostic in people with sciatica. In the present exploratory analyses, both the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and the SF-36 Physical Component ADP ribosylation factor Summary were consistently prognostic. Although this study presents novel results, its exploratory design brings inevitable limitations. First, we

do not know if the substitute questions exactly cover the scope and content of the questionnaires for which they were Modulators developed. It is possible that the substitute question explains a different part of the model and that comparing the explained variations between the models may not be fully valid. Second, firm conclusions on the replacement of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia by its substitute question cannot be made as further extensive psychometric testing is needed. Third, the relatively small sample size may have limited the power of the analyses. Finally, because we tested the feasibility of replacing a questionnaire by one unique substitute question in a prediction model only in people with sciatica in primary care, the generalisability of these results to other groups is limited.