ArticleSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2014
[Comparison of two screening questionnaires for patients with low back pain. Collation of risk factors for chronification].
Article in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of a taping method combined with manual therapy as a treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain - a randomized controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Trial
- Avoidance-endurance fast screening (AE-FS) : Content and predictive validity of a 9-item screening instrument for patients with unspecific subacute low back pain.Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2020Review
- [Psychosocial risk factors for chronic back pain in the general population and in competitive sports : From theory to clinical screening-a review from the MiSpEx network].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2018Review
- [Avoidance-endurance fast screening (AE-FS) : Content and predictive validity of a 9‑item screening instrument for patients with unspecific subacute low back pain].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2018Observational
- Development and Validation of a Pain Behavior Assessment in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2016Article
- Predicting Persistent Back Symptoms by Psychosocial Risk Factors: Validity Criteria for the ÖMPSQ and the HKF-R 10 in Germany.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScreening for risk factors for chronic low back pain (LBP) (yellow flags) is recommended by clinical guidelines. Various questionnaires to assess yellow flags have been proposed.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the prognostic validity of two screening questionnaires. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a prospective observational study with 241 LBP patients from 9 general practitioners, 4 orthopedic surgeons and 2 pain clinics. We compared the Örebro musculoskeletal pain questionnaire (ÖMSPQ) and the Heidelberg short questionnaire (HKF-R10) which were completed by all patients at inclusion before the consultation. Primary outcomes were assessed after 3 months by mail. Clinical endpoints were pain intensity, disability and more than two follow-up consultations.
resultsThe sensitivity of the HKF-R10 to predict the primary outcome ranged from 81 % to 88 %, while the specificity was much lower (37-47 %). The ÖMSPQ showed an opposite pattern with a low sensitivity ranging from 50 % to 58 % but a higher specificity (77-80 %). In patients initially classified as having chronic LBP (n = 81), using the questionnaires as a diagnostic tool, the sensitivity of both questionnaires increased but specificity decreased. Single items may perform better with regard to primary outcome than the sum scores.
conclusionBoth screening questionnaires for chronic LBP have insufficient diagnostic and prognostic validity for routine use in ambulatory care. Further studies are needed to improve diagnostic and prognostic validity and to elaborate criteria for a targeted use of screening questionnaires to guide therapeutic interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25070723What 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.