Next, Pearson correlation coefficients find more were calculated between the baseline scores of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, EQ-5D, the SF-36 physical component summary, and the substitute question for each questionnaire. A correlation coefficient of 0.10 was classified as small, 0.30 as medium, and 0.50 as a large

correlation (Cohen 1992). For every Pearson correlation the corresponding assumptions were tested and variables were transformed if the assumptions of normal distribution were violated. Finally, multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to predict recovery (global perceived effect) at 1 year follow-up. We respected the rule of 10 cases per eligible variable and adjusted the analyses for three covariates (Peduzzi et al 1996). The participants in the original trial were randomised between physical therapy plus general practitioner care versus general practitioner care alone. As physical therapy did influence global perceived effect at 1 year follow-up, the analyses were adjusted for treatment PD0325901 mouse (Luijsterburg et al 2008).

We also adjusted for gender (Jensen et al 2007, Peul et al 2008b, Skouen et al 1997, Weber 1978) and duration of symptoms at baseline (Carragee and Kim 1997, Tubach et al 2004, Valls et al 2001, Vroomen et al 2000, Vroomen et al 2002) because of their reported influence on outcome in patients with sciatica. To avoid problems due to multicollinearity we decided to perform three distinct regression analyses. The independent variables that were entered in the analysis differed between these models: A) treatment, gender, and duration of symptoms; B) same as A + the unique substitute question; and C) same as A + the score of the questionnaire. Differences in the predictive power between these models were Libraries analysed using the Nagelkerke R2 (Nagelkerke 1991). R2 represents the proportion of variation explained by variables in regression models. If a model could perfectly predict outcome at 1 year follow-up,

the explained variation would be close to 100%. We considered the same, or an even higher, SB-3CT explained variation of model B compared to model C as an indication that it might be feasible to replace the questionnaire by its substitute question in predicting outcome at 1 year follow-up. The same multivariate analyses were carried out with severity of pain in the leg as the dependent variable. The residuals of a linear regression model with outcome pain showed a non-normal distribution and thus corresponding assumptions for linear regression analysis were violated. Therefore, we decided to do a binary logistic regression analysis with the outcome ‘pain severity in the leg’ in our population dichotomised as ≤ 1 = no pain and > 1 = pain. We also checked for consistency in results when changing the threshold from 1 to 2 or 3.