ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2017
Diagnosis of psychosocial risk factors in prevention of low back pain in athletes (MiSpEx).
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Physical and psychological differences between athletes with and without chronic primary low back pain: a scoping review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Review
- Sleep Status and Chronotype in University Athletes with and without Chronic Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.Sleep science (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Article
- Translation and Adaptation of the French Version of the Risk Stratification Index, a Tool for Stratified Care in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Comparison of Isometric Strength of the Trunk and Hip Muscle Groups in Female Athletes with and without Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2022Article
- Assessment and classification of peripheral pain in athletes: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2021Article
- Psychosocial Moderators and Mediators of Sensorimotor Exercise in Low Back Pain: A Randomized Multicenter Controlled Trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- [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
- Muscle Strength and Neuromuscular Control in Low-Back Pain: Elite Athletes Versus General Population.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a common pain syndrome in athletes, responsible for 28% of missed training days/year. Psychosocial factors contribute to chronic pain development. This study aims to investigate the transferability of psychosocial screening tools developed in the general population to athletes and to define athlete-specific thresholds.
methodsData from a prospective multicentre study on LBP were collected at baseline and 1-year follow-up (n=52 athletes, n=289 recreational athletes and n=246 non-athletes). Pain was assessed using the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire. The psychosocial Risk Stratification Index (RSI) was used to obtain prognostic information regarding the risk of chronic LBP (CLBP). Individual psychosocial risk profile was gained with the Risk Prevention Index - Social (RPI-S). Differences between groups were calculated using general linear models and planned contrasts. Discrimination thresholds for athletes were defined with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves.
resultsAthletes and recreational athletes showed significantly lower psychosocial risk profiles and prognostic risk for CLBP than non-athletes. ROC curves suggested discrimination thresholds for athletes were different compared with non-athletes. Both screenings demonstrated very good sensitivity (RSI=100%; RPI-S: 75%-100%) and specificity (RSI: 76%-93%; RPI-S: 71%-93%). RSI revealed two risk classes for pain intensity (area under the curve (AUC) 0.92(95% CI 0.85 to 1.0)) and pain disability (AUC 0.88(95% CI 0.71 to 1.0)).
conclusionsBoth screening tools can be used for athletes. Athlete-specific thresholds will improve physicians' decision making and allow stratified treatment and prevention.
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.