Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27742627›Full record

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.

J C Hill, E K Afolabi, M Lewis, K M Dunn, E Roddy, D A van der Windt, N E Foster

Abstract readPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

J C HillInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
E K AfolabiInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
M LewisInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
K M DunnInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6202-2606
E RoddyInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
D A van der WindtInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
N E FosterInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1211-20010Medical Research Council G0902393
6 · The paper itself

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

Physical Therapy ModalitiesBack PainFemaleHealth Status IndicatorsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal PainPain MeasurementPredictive Value of TestsPrimary Health CarePrognosisProspective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificitySeverity of Illness Indexprognosisprospective cohortRisk stratificationSTarT Back Tool

Identifiers

PMID27742627
PMCPMC5073547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.