Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29796980›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2019

Predicting Return to Work in a Heterogeneous Sample of Recently Injured Workers Using the Brief ÖMPSQ-SF.

M K Nicholas, D S J Costa, S J Linton, C J Main, W S Shaw, R Pearce, M Gleeson, R Z Pinto, F M Blyth, J H McCauley and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

M K NicholasSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney & Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia. michael.nicholas@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-4947-398X
D S J CostaSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney & Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
S J LintonDepartment of Law, Psychology, and Social Work, Center for Health and Medical Psychology, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
C J MainArthritis Care UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, North Staffordshire, UK.
W S ShawUniversity of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT, USA.
R PearceSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney & Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
M GleesonSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney & Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
R Z PintoSydney Medical School - Northern, University of Sydney & Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
F M BlythSchool of Public Health, Concord Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
J H McCauleyNeuroscience Research Australia and School of Medical Sciences, University of NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
C G MaherThe George Institute, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
R J E M SmeetsKnowledge Centre Rehabilitation Foundation Limburg, Hoensbroek, The Netherlands.
A McGarityInjury Management, Health & Safety Branch, NSW Fire and Safety, Sydney, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUArthritis UK · GBMaastricht University · NLNeuroscience Research Australia · AUÖrebro University · SEUConn Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose (1) to examine the ability of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire-short version (ÖMPSQ-SF) to predict time to return to pre-injury work duties (PID) following a work-related soft tissue injury (regardless of body location); and (2) to examine the appropriateness of 50/100 as a suitable cut-off score for case identification. Methods Injured workers (IW) from six public hospitals in Sydney, Australia, who had taken medically-sanctioned time off work due to their injury, were recruited by insurance case managers within 5-15 days of their injury. Eligible participants (N = 213 in total) were administered the ÖMPSQ-SF over the telephone by the case manager. For objective (1) Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to predict days to return to PID using the ÖMPSQ-SF. For objective (2) receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine the ÖMPSQ-SF total score that optimises sensitivity and specificity in detecting whether or not participants had returned to PID within 2-7 weeks. Results The total ÖMPSQ-SF score significantly predicted number of days to return to PID, such that for every 1-point increase in the total ÖMPSQ-SF score the predicted chance of returning to work reduced by 4% (i.e., hazard ratio = 0.96), p < 0.001. Sensitivity and specificity for the ROC analysis comparing ÖMPSQ-SF total score to return to PID within 2-7 weeks suggested 48 as the optimal cut off (sensitivity = 0.65, specificity = 0.79). Conclusion The results provide strong support for the use of the ÖMPSQ-SF in an applied setting for identifying those IW likely to have delayed RTW when administered within 15 days of the injury. While a score of 48/100 was the optimal cut point for sensitivity and specificity, pragmatically, 50/100 should be acceptable as a cut-off in future studies of this type.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationCase-Control StudiesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleOccupational InjuriesReturn to WorkSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkers' CompensationPsychosocial factorsScreeningWorker’s compensationWork injury

Identifiers

PMID29796980
OpenAlexW2804580063

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.