Subgrouping low back pain: A comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

Hill, Jonathan; Dunn, Kate M.; Main, Chris J.; Hay, Elaine M

doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.01.003

Cited by 177 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the basis of potentially modifiable prognostic factors, the SBT classifies people into prognostic subgroups and identifies targeted treatment pathways for those subgroups [1]. The construct, concurrent and predictive validity of the SBT has been investigated [2][3][4]; it has been translated into several languages [5][6][7] and its cross-cultural validity and cross-cultural predictive ability have been described [7,8]. In addition, a high-quality randomised controlled trial that matched treatment pathways to each SBT subgroup showed improved patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The predictive ability of the STarT Back Screening Tool in a Danish secondary care setting

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The predictive ability of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) in secondary care settings has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to determine the SBT's predictive ability in a Danish secondary care setting and compare this to a Danish primary care setting. Methods Poor clinical outcome at 6 months ([30 points on a 0-100 Roland Morris Disability Scale) was calculated in secondary care (n = 960) and primary care (n = 172) cohorts. The cohorts were stratified into SBT subgroups and estimates of additional risk for poor outcome were calculated [relative risk (RR), unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios]. The discriminative ability was determined using the area under the curve statistic. Results In secondary care 69.0 % and in primary care 40.2 % had poor outcome on activity limitation. Although significant, the predictive ability of the SBT in secondary care (medium-risk RR 1.5, high-risk RR 1.7) was not as strong as in primary care (medium-risk RR 2.3, high-risk RR 3.5). Adjusting for episode duration and pain intensity only changed the predictive ability marginally in secondary care. The discriminative ability of the SBT was similar in both cohorts despite differences in the predictive ability. Conclusion The SBT had less predictive ability in a Danish secondary care setting compared to a Danish primary care setting for persistent activity limitation at 6 months follow-up. SBT-targeted treatment implications in secondary care were not investigated in this study.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The predictive ability of the STarT Back Screening Tool in a Danish secondary care setting

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a survey carried out to identify other studies about low back pain, only 81 out of 1200 documents were identified which provided a clear definition of the symptom, and the lack of such standardization makes it difficult to confront the present data with data from other studies. 12 The majority of the questionnaires used in standardized (validated and applied in different countries) studies on low back pain were those evaluating disability, fear or the catastrophizing of patients already diagnosed with low back pain, 27,28 since identifying the patient's behaviors and limitations helps in the choice of treatment 29 aimed at reducing the chronicity, reestablishing the health and returning to normal activities. 5,6,27 However another approach reinforces the importance of identifying the risk factors in young people and adopting primary care, instead of only focusing on policies and treatments during adulthood and in already triggered cases.…”

Section: 13mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability, Stability and Validity of the Brazilian Adaptation of the Oliveira Questionnaire on Low Back Pain in Young People

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to adapt the Brazilian version, and verify the validity, reliability and internal consistency of the Oliveira questionnaire on low back pain in young people. Material and Methods:The questionnaire was translated from European Portuguese into Brazilian Portuguese by means of translation and re-translation. The validity of the contents was determined by experts who analyzed the clarity and pertinence of the questions. Fifteen young people aged 15 to 18 took part in the pre-test step (qualitative analysis), 40 in the test-retest (reliability) and 679 in the evaluation of internal consistency. The intra-class correlation coefficient and Spearman's correlation coefficient were used in the reliability analysis (test-retest), and Cronbach's alpha to determine the internal consistency (stability). Results:In the translation phase the questionnaire was modified and considered suitable, observing similarity and equivalence of the two versions. After being corrected by the experts in the validation of the contents, the instrument was considered suitable and valid, and in the pre-test, the young people suggested some modifications to make the questionnaire more succinct. With respect to reliability, the values for the intra-class correlation coefficient were between 0.512 -acceptable and 1 -excellent and Spearman's correlation coefficient varied between 0.525 and 1, classifying the instrument as reproducible. The internal consistency was considered acceptable with a 0.757 Cronbach's alpha. Discussion: The Oliveira questionnaire was choosen since it has been used in several Portuguese studies; moreover, it addresses the need to raise data regarding low back pain and associated risk factors. Conclusions:The Brazilian version of the Oliveira questionnaire on low back pain in young people showed valid and reliable cultural adaptation, with good reliability and stability.

show abstract

“…Classification and Prognosis: The Task Force did not undertake a systematic literature review, but considered previous work on back pain taxonomy, (4,6,15,24,33,34,44,52,56,74,79,83,101,104,105,117) prognostic classification, (13,19,31,38,39,43,48,49,53,54,(57)(58)(59)(60)(66)(67)(68)73,76,80,82,85,86,97,106,108,110,(112)(113)(114)(115)(116)122) pain and psychosocial measures, (12,31,...…”

Section: Review Of Existing Literature On Back Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These items have substantial research support to validate their discriminatory and prognostic importance. (13,19,31,38,39,43,(47)(48)(49)53,54,(57)(58)(59)(60)(66)(67)(68)73,76,80,82,85,86,97,106,108,110,(112)(113)(114)(115)(116)122) This stratification of cLBP by impact would be appropriate whether or not there appears to be contributory degenerative pathoanatomy. Even when pathoanatomic conditions are thought to contribute to symptoms and dysfunction, they often coexist and overlap, and sometimes fail to respond to specific interventions.…”

Section: How Often Has Low-back Pain Been An Ongoing Problem For You mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain

Deyo

Dworkin

Amtmann

et al. 2015

IJTMB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite rapidly increasing intervention, functional disability due to chronic low back pain (cLBP) has increased in recent decades. We often cannot identify mechanisms to explain the major negative impact cLBP has on patients' lives. Such cLBP is often termed non-specific, and may be due to multiple biologic and behavioral etiologies. Researchers use varied inclusion criteria, definitions, baseline assessments, and outcome measures, which impede comparisons and consensus. The NIH Pain Consortium therefore charged a Research Task Force (RTF) to draft standards for research on cLBP. The resulting multidisciplinary panel recommended using 2 questions to define cLBP; classifying cLBP by its impact (defined by pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function); use of a minimal data set to describe research participants (drawing heavily on the PROMIS methodology); reporting "responder analyses" in addition to mean outcome scores; and suggestions for future research and dissemination. The Pain Consortium has approved the recommendations, which investigators should incorporate into NIH grant proposals. The RTF believes these recommendations will advance the field, help to resolve controversies, and facilitate future research addressing the genomic, neurologic, and other mechanistic substrates of chronic low back pain. We expect the RTF recommendations will become a dynamic document, and undergo continual improvement. Perspective: A Task Force was convened by the NIH Pain Consortium, with the goal of developing research standards for chronic low back pain.The results included recommendations for definitions, a minimal dataset, reporting outcomes, and future research. Greater consistency in reporting should facilitate comparisons among studies and the development of phenotypes.KEY WORDS: low back pain; chronic low back pain; research standards; minimum dataset; NIH Task Force introduCtion The Institute of Medicine recently estimated that chronic pain affects about 100 million adults in the United States, with an estimated annual cost of $635 billion, including direct medical expenditures and loss of work productivity. (3) Activity-limiting low back pain (LBP), in particular, has a world-wide lifetime prevalence of about 39% and a similar annual prevalence of 38%. (61) The majority of people having LBP experience recurrent episodes. (62) The use of all interventions for treating chronic LBP (cLBP) increased from 1995-2010, including surgery, pharmacological, and non-pharmacological approaches. Despite increased utilization, however, the prevalence of symptoms and expenditures has increased. 37,70,91

show abstract

Subgrouping low back pain: A comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

Cited by 177 publications

References 31 publications

The predictive ability of the STarT Back Screening Tool in a Danish secondary care setting

The predictive ability of the STarT Back Screening Tool in a Danish secondary care setting

Reliability, Stability and Validity of the Brazilian Adaptation of the Oliveira Questionnaire on Low Back Pain in Young People

Report of the NIH Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About