ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Can the French version of the short Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire or its subsets predict the evolution of patients with acute, (sub) acute and chronic pain?
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of Work Ability in People with Musculoskeletal Disorders in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review of Self-Reported Tools.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2025Article
- The High Burden of Acute and Chronic Pain in General Practice in French-Speaking Belgium.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevention of chronic pain relies on accurate detection of at-risk patients. Screening tools have been validated mainly in (sub) acute spinal pain and the need of more generic tools is high. We assessed the validity of the French version of the short Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) in patients with a large range of pain duration and localization.
methodsFirst, we re-analyzed data from a 6-month longitudinal study of 73 patients with (sub) acute spinal pain consulting in secondary line settings. Secondly, we performed a new 12-month longitudinal study of 542 primary care patients with (sub) acute and chronic pain in different localizations (spinal, limbs, "non-musculoskeletal"). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and cutoff scores were computed and compared for different subpopulations and ÖMPSQ subscores.
resultsData from patients suffering from (sub) acute and chronic spinal pain consulting in both primary and secondary care settings confirmed the validity of the short French ÖMPSQ version and its subsets. In the primary care cohort, the performance of the questionnaire and its psychosocial subscore was variable but at least "fair" in most populations ((sub) acute and chronic, spinal and limb pain). Cutoff scores showed quite large variability depending on the outcome and the subpopulation considered.
conclusionsThese results confirm the usefulness of the short French ÖMPSQ for prediction of the evolution of (sub) acute and chronic patients with spinal and limb pain, whatever its duration. However, increasing population heterogeneity results in slightly worse predictive performance and largely variable cutoff scores. Consequently, it might be difficult to choose universal cutoff scores and other criteria, such as patients' values and the available resources for patient management, should be taken into account.
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.