ArticleEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2010
Subgrouping low back pain: a comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire.
Article in European journal of pain (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
85 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Predicting Work Disability Related to Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review of the Most Clinically Relevant Tools.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Low back pain.The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy · 2012Guideline
- Where is the patient in the records? Evaluating physiotherapists' first visit in occupational health primary care pathway for low back pain.BMJ open quality · 2026Trial
- Capabilities, opportunities and motivations in implementing guideline-oriented biopsychosocial low back pain management: perceptions of occupational healthcare professionals after an educational intervention.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- Development and evaluation of the MAINTAIN instrument, selecting patients suitable for secondary or tertiary preventive manual care: the Nordic maintenance care program.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2022Trial
- Psychosocial Mechanisms of Cognitive-Behavioral-Based Physical Therapy Outcomes After Spine Surgery: Preliminary Findings From Mediation Analyses.Physical therapy · 2020Trial
- The StarT back screening tool and a pain mannequin improve triage in individuals with low back pain at risk of a worse prognosis - a population based cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Efficacy of paracetamol, diclofenac and advice for acute low back pain in general practice: design of a randomized controlled trial (PACE Plus).BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Chronic low back pain clinical outcomes present higher associations with the STarT Back Screening Tool than with physiologic measures: a 12-month cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2015Trial
- Pragmatic Implementation of a Stratified Primary Care Model for Low Back Pain Management in Outpatient Physical Therapy Settings: Two-Phase, Sequential Preliminary Study.Physical therapy · 2015Trial
- Efficacy of classification-based cognitive functional therapy in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2013Trial
- Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2011Trial
- Determining the Impact of a Physiotherapist-Led Primary Care Model for Low Back Pain: Protocol and Analysis Plan for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial and Embedded Process Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Observational
- Article
- Characterization of Tiered Psychological Distress Phenotypes in an Orthopaedic Sports Population.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Informing Implementation of a National Integrated Clinical Pathway for Low Back Pain in Ireland: A Pre-Implementation Qualitative Study With General Practitioners.Musculoskeletal care · 2025Article
25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionClinicians require brief, practical tools to help identify low back pain (LBP) subgroups requiring early, targeted secondary prevention. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) was recently validated to subgroup LBP patients into early treatment pathways.
aimTo test the SBT's concurrent validity against an existing, popular LBP subgrouping tool, the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ), and to compare the clinical characteristics of subgroups identified by each tool.
methodsTwo hundred and forty-four consecutive 'non-specific' LBP consulters at 8 UK GP practices aged 18-59years were invited to complete a questionnaire. Measures included the OMPSQ and SBT, disability, fear, catastrophising, pain intensity, episode duration and demographics. Instruments were compared using Spearman's correlations, tests for subgroup agreement and discriminant analysis of subgroup characteristics according to reference standards.
resultsCompleted SBT (9-items) and OMPSQ (24-items) data was available for 130/244 patients (53%). The correlation of SBT and OMPSQ scores was 'excellent (rs=0.80). Subgroup characteristics were similar across the low, medium and high subgroups, but, the proportions allocated to 'low', 'medium' and 'high' risk groups were different, with fewer patients in the SBT's high risk group. Both instruments similarly discriminated for reference standards such as disability, catastrophising, fear, comorbid pain and time off work. The OMPSQ was better at discriminating pain intensity, while the SBT was better for discriminating bothersomeness of back pain and referred leg pain.
conclusionsThe SBT baseline psychometrics performed similarly to the OMPSQ, but the SBT is shorter and easier to score and is an appropriate alternative for identifying high risk LBP patients in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.