Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29671109›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2018

The use of STarT BACK Screening Tool in emergency departments for patients with acute low back pain: a prospective inception cohort study.

Flávia Cordeiro Medeiros, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa, Indiara Soares Oliveira, Renan Kendy Oshima, Lucíola Cunha Menezes Costa

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Prospective observational study investigating the predictive validity of the STarT Back tool and the clinical effectiveness of stratified care in an emergency department setting.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Tackling low back pain in Brazil: a wake-up call.Brazilian journal of physical therapy
    Review
  16. Review
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

5 authors.

Flávia Cordeiro MedeirosMasters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 448, Tatuapé, SP, 03071-100, Brazil. flaviamedeiros.fisio@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5305-8324
Leonardo Oliveira Pena CostaMasters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 448, Tatuapé, SP, 03071-100, Brazil.
Indiara Soares OliveiraMasters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 448, Tatuapé, SP, 03071-100, Brazil.
Renan Kendy OshimaMasters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 448, Tatuapé, SP, 03071-100, Brazil.
Lucíola Cunha Menezes CostaMasters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, Rua Cesário Galeno 448, Tatuapé, SP, 03071-100, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose(1) To analyse the clinical utility of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) in emergency departments by describing changes in classification over time and; (2) to identify what would be the best time to use the SBST to predict long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP) seeking emergency care.

methodsA 6 months prospective inception cohort study was conducted. 200 participants with LBP seeking emergency medical treatment were included. Pain intensity, disability and SBST were collected at baseline, 6 and 26 weeks. Categories of improvement, clinical worsening, and stability were created to calculate the changes in the SBST subgroups. Linear regression models were built to analyse the predictive ability of SBST when applied at baseline, 6 weeks as well as changes in the subgroup from baseline to 6 weeks. These models were adjusted for potential confounders.

results45% of patients were classified as high risk of chronicity at baseline. Most patients classified as medium (86.7%) or high (52.4%) risk changed their risk subgroup after 6 weeks and most of them improved. The SBST improved the prediction for all outcomes when applied at 6 weeks (R

conclusionMost of patients seeking care in emergency departments with a new episode of acute LBP improved after 6 weeks. The use of SBST to guide initial treatment and to predict clinical outcomes are most indicated when the instrument is applied after 6 weeks after presentation to emergency care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationEmergency Service, HospitalLow Back PainHumansProspective StudiesAcute low back painEmergency departmentInception cohortPrediction modelsPrognosisSTarT Back Tool

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.