ArticleThe South African journal of physiotherapy2020
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the STarT back screening tool in isiZulu.
Article in The South African journal of physiotherapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translation, validation, and reliability of Örebro Musculoskeletal Screening Questionnaire in Nepali.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- A Community-Based Screening Tool for Childhood Epilepsy: Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the INDT-EPI Tool in Punjabi-Speaking Indian Population.Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional hospital-based study of correlates of disability in patients with chronic low back pain in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- A Scoping Review on the Epidemiology of Chronic Low Back Pain among Adults in Sub-Saharan Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Factor Structure, Validity, and Reliability of the STarT Back Screening Tool in Italian Obese and Non-obese Patients With Low Back Pain.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is one of the most prevalent conditions in the world. Identifying patients at risk for developing chronic NSLBP is key to effective treatment. The STarT back screening tool is a validated, prognostic screening tool identifying subgroups of NSLBP patients, and the risk factors associated with each subgroup, guiding treatment in the primary care of NSLBP.
objectivesTo translate the English version of the STarT back screening tool into isiZulu and determine the content validity and reliability of the translated tool.
methodTranslation was completed in four phases - forward translation and synthesis, backward translation and expert review. Validation included expert review for content validity and testing of the translated tool on 30 patients, determining test-retest reliability, internal consistency and usability.
resultsMinor linguistic differences were addressed during the translation phase. Item content validity was excellent for relevance (1.00), satisfactory (0.94) for clarity, simplicity and ambiguity, with scale-content validity acceptable (0.955). Spearman's correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was acceptable (0.73). Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency for the total score for test 1 and test 2 was 0.68 and 0.77, and for the psychosocial scale 0.62 and 0.77 respectively. Overall, 33% found the tool very easy to understand and 40% found it very easy to complete.
conclusionThe isiZulu STarT back screening tool showed excellent content validity, acceptable reliability and acceptable internal consistency. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Use of the isiZulu tool in local clinics and private practices can improve clinical decision-making and treatment outcomes for isiZulu-speaking patients with NSLBP.
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.