ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2015
Validation of the German version of the STarT-Back Tool (STarT-G): a cohort study with patients from primary care practices.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical App Treatment of Non-Specific Low Back Pain in the 12-month Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial Rise-uP: Where Clinical Superiority Meets Cost Savings.Journal of pain research · 2024Trial
- Effects of a movement control and tactile acuity training in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain and control impairment - a randomised controlled pilot study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Trial
- Digital Treatment of Back Pain versus Standard of Care: The Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial, Rise-uP.Journal of pain research · 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
- Feasibility and long-term efficacy of a proactive health program in the treatment of chronic back pain: a randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2019Trial
- [Effectiveness of a risk-tailored short intervention to prevent chronic low back pain : A cluster-randomized study in general practice].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Trial
- Prognostic ability of the German version of the STarT Back tool: analysis of 12-month follow-up data from a randomized controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Trial
- Effect of Low Back Pain Risk-Stratification Strategy on Patient Outcomes and Care Processes: the MATCH Randomized Trial in Primary Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Trial
- Proposal and Initial Validation of a Brief Questionnaire for Epidemiological Assessment of Low Back Pain.Pain research & management · 2026Article
- The course of acute low back pain: a community-based inception cohort study.Pain reports · 2024Article
- On-Site Physiotherapy in Emergency Department Patients Presenting with Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Based Linking of Patient Reported Outcome Measures to WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Activity/Participation Categories.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a blended learning approach on stratified care for physiotherapy bachelor students.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Health Promotion for Students of Veterinary Medicine: A Preliminary Study on Active Microbreaks and Ergonomics Education.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Developing tailored intervention strategies for implementation of stratified care to low back pain with physiotherapists in Nigeria: a Delphi study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Validation of the German version of the STarT-MSK-Tool: A cohort study with patients from physiotherapy clinics.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Thai version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with non-specific low back pain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Factor Structure, Validity, and Reliability of the STarT Back Screening Tool in Italian Obese and Non-obese Patients With Low Back Pain.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the STarT back screening tool in isiZulu.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent research emphasizes the high prevalence and costs of low back pain (LBP). The STarT Back Tool was designed to support primary care decision making for treatment by helping to determine the treatment prognosis of patients with non-specific low back pain. The German version is the STarT-G. The cross-cultural translation of the tool followed a structured and widely accepted process but to date it was only partially validated with a small sample. The aim of the study was to test the psychometric properties construct validity, discriminative ability, internal consistency and test-retest-reliability of the STarT-G and to compare them with values given for the original English version.
methodsA consecutive cohort study with a two-week retest was conducted among patients with non-specific LBP, aged 18 to 60 years, from primary care practices. Questionnaires were collected before the first consultation, and two weeks later by post, using the following reference standards: the Roland and Morris disability questionnaire, the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Psychometric properties examined included the tool's discriminative abilities, whether the psychosocial subscale was one factor, internal consistency, item redundancy, test-retest reliability and floor and ceiling effects.
resultsThere were 228 patients recruited with a mean age of 42.2 (SD 11.0) years, and 53 % were female. The areas under the curve (AUC) for discriminative ability ranged from 0.70 (STarT-G Subscale - Pain Catastrophizing Scale; CI95 0.63, 0.78) to 0.77 (STarT-G Total - Composite reference standard, CI95 0.60, 0.94). Factor loadings ranged from 0.49 to 0.74. Cronbach's alpha testing the internal consistency and redundancy for the total/subscale scores were α = 0.52/0.55 respectively. The STarT-G test-retest reliability Kappa values for the total/subscale scores were 0.67/0.68 respectively. No floor or ceiling effects were present.
conclusionsThe STarT-G shows acceptable psychometric properties although not in exact agreement with the original English version. The items previously regarded as a psychosocial subscale may be better seen as an index of different individual psychosocial constructs. The relevance of using the tool at the point of consultation should be further examined.
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.