Trial reportBMJ open2016
Does a modified STarT Back Tool predict outcome with a broader group of musculoskeletal patients than back pain? A secondary analysis of cohort data.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modifiable prognostic factors of high societal costs among people on sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders: a replication study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Trial
- Development and feasibility of stratified primary care physiotherapy integrated with eHealth in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: results of a mixed methods study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Trial
- Are changes in pain associated with changes in heart rate variability in patients treated for recurrent or persistent neck pain?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Trial
- Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2020Trial
- Trial
- ChiroSCOPE (Chiropractic Systematic Clinical Observation of Practice Evidence): preliminary evaluation of a web application for data collection within a clinical research network: a mixed methods pilot study.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2026Article
- Why do you think you still have pain? Individuals' beliefs on the biopsychosocial factors that contribute to their chronic musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative exploration.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Optimizing osteoarthritis care through clinical and community partnership: Results of an exploratory trial.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2025Article
- Article
- The Swedish version of the STarT MSK Tool: cross-cultural adaption, test-retest reliability, and aspects of validity.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Article
- Risk-based stratified primary care for common musculoskeletal pain presentations (STarT MSK): a cluster-randomised, controlled trial.The Lancet. Rheumatology · 2022Article
- Article
- Low Risk for Persistent Back Pain Disability Is Characterized by Lower Pain Sensitivity and Higher Physical Performance.Physical therapy · 2022Article
- Complex Lifestyle and Psychological Intervention in Knee Osteoarthritis: Scoping Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Predicting Recurrent Care Seeking of Physical Therapy for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2021Article
- Validity and reliability of the Norwegian version of the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire in people on sick leave.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2021Article
- Unintended consequences: quantifying the benefits, iatrogenic harms and downstream cascade costs of musculoskeletal MRI in UK primary care.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Stratified care integrated with eHealth versus usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Development and validation of a shoulder-specific body-perception questionnaire in people with persistent shoulder pain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
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
Abstract
objectivesThe STarT Back Tool has good predictive performance for non-specific low back pain in primary care. We therefore aimed to investigate whether a modified STarT Back Tool predicted outcome with a broader group of musculoskeletal patients, and assessed the consequences of using existing risk-group cut-points across different pain regions.
settingSecondary analysis of prospective data from 2 cohorts: (1) outpatient musculoskeletal physiotherapy services (PhysioDirect trial n=1887) and (2) musculoskeletal primary-secondary care interface services (SAMBA study n=1082).
participantsPatients with back, neck, upper limb, lower limb or multisite pain with a completed modified STarT Back Tool (baseline) and 6-month physical health outcome (Short Form 36 (SF-36)). OUTCOMES: Area under the receiving operator curve (AUCs) tested discriminative abilities of the tool's baseline score for identifying poor 6-month outcome (SF-36 lower tertile Physical Component Score). Risk-group cut-points were tested using sensitivity and specificity for identifying poor outcome using (1) Youden's J statistic and (2) a clinically determined rule that specificity should not fall below 0.7 (false-positive rate <30%).
resultsIn PhysioDirect and SAMBA, poor 6-month physical health was 18.5% and 28.2%, respectively. Modified STarT Back Tool score AUCs for predicting outcome in back pain were 0.72 and 0.79, neck 0.82 and 0.88, upper limb 0.79 and 0.86, lower limb 0.77 and 0.83, and multisite pain 0.83 and 0.82 in PhysioDirect and SAMBA, respectively. Differences between pain region AUCs were non-significant. Optimal cut-points to discriminate low-risk and medium-risk/high-risk groups depended on pain region and clinical services.
conclusionsA modified STarT Back Tool similarly predicts 6-month physical health outcome across 5 musculoskeletal pain regions. However, the use of consistent risk-group cut-points was not possible and resulted in poor sensitivity (too many with long-term disability being missed) or specificity (too many with good outcome inaccurately classified as 'at risk') for some pain regions. The draft tool is now being refined and validated within a new programme of research for a broader musculoskeletal population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55666618; Post results.
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.