ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2017
Comparison of the Swedish STarT Back Screening Tool and the Short Form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in patients with acute or subacute back and neck pain.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02609750 (WorkUp. Early Structured Care Including Workplace Interventions to Improve Work Ability in Patients With Neck and/or Back Pain. A Prospective Pare Wise Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care With One Year Follow up), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
WorkUp. Early Structured Care Including Workplace Interventions to Improve Work Ability in Patients With Neck and/or Back Pain. A Prospective Pare Wise Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care With One Year Follow up
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Risk Stratification in a Tertiary Care Spine Centre: Comparison Between STarTBack and OSPRO-YF Screening Tools.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a multimodal pain rehabilitation programme in primary care based on clinical register data: a feasibility study.Primary health care research & development · 2020Observational
- Patients' Views on the Implementation Potential of a Stratified Treatment Approach for Low Back Pain in Germany: A Qualitative Study.Health services insights · 2020Article
- Article
- The effectiveness of a simplified core stabilization program (TRICCS-Trivandrum Community-based Core Stabilisation) for community-based intervention in chronic non-specific low back pain.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2019Article
- Article
- Risk classification of patients referred to secondary care for low back pain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2018Observational
- Validation of the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment for Back (STarT Back) screening tool at a tertiary care centre.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with back and neck pain are often seen in primary care and it is important to provide them with tailored interventions based on risk stratification/triage. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) is a widely used screening questionnaire which has not yet been validated for a population with back and/or neck pain with short duration. Our aim was to compare the concurrent validity of the SBT and the short form of the ÖMPSQ including psychometric properties and clinical utility in a primary care setting.
methodsPatients who applied for physiotherapy by direct access (January 2013 to January 2014) at 35 primary care centers in south Sweden, with acute or subacute back and/or neck pain, aged 18-67 years, who were not currently on sick leave or had been on sick leave less than 60 days were asked to complete the SBT and ÖMPSQ-short questionnaire (n = 329). We used the Spearman's rank correlations to study correlations, cross tabulation and Cohen's kappa to analyze agreement of patient classification. Clinical utility was described as clinician scoring miscalculations and misclassifications of total and/or subscale scores.
resultsCompleted SBT (9-items) and ÖMPSQ-short (10-items) data were available for 315/329 patients respectively. The statistical correlation for SBT and ÖMPSQ-short total scores was moderately strong (0.62, p < 0.01). In subgroup analyses, the correlations were 0.69 (p < 0.01) for males and 0.57 (p < 0.01) for females. The correlations were lower among older age groups, especially females over 50 years (0.21, p = 0.11). Classification to high or low risk for long-term pain and disability had moderate agreement (κ = 0.42). Observed classification agreement was 70.2%. The SBT had fewer miscalculations (13/315) than the ÖMPSQ-short (54/315).
conclusionsThe correlation between the SBT and the ÖMPSQ-short scores were moderately strong for individuals with acute or subacute back and/or neck pain. SBT seemed to be clinically feasible to use in clinical practice. We therefore suggest that SBT can be used for individuals with both BP and/or NP in primary care settings but it is important to be aware of that SBT's agreement with the ÖMPSQ-short was poor among females aged over 50 years.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02609750 Registered: November 18, 2015.
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.