Depression, anxiety, and somatization influence the recovery of people with musculoskeletal pain. A Delphi study was conducted to reach consensus on the most appropriate self-administered questionnaires to assess these psychosocial factors in people at risk of developing persistent musculoskeletal pain. A multidisciplinary panel of international experts was identified via PubReMiner. The experts (N = 22) suggested 24 questionnaires in Round 1. In Round 2, experts rated the questionnaires on suitability, considering clinimetrics, content, feasibility, personal experiences, and expertise. The highest ranked questionnaires were retained for Round 3, in which the experts made a final assessment of the suitability of the questionnaires. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of 1) not all experts having participated in each round, and 2) experts having been involved in relevant questionnaire development. Consensus (ie, ≥75% agreement) was reached for the following questionnaires.Perspective: This study generated a short list of preferred questionnaires to assess depression, anxiety, and somatization in people with musculoskeletal pain. Broad implementation of these questionnaires by clinicians and researchers will facilitate easier comparison and pooling of baseline and outcome data. Some of the recommended questionnaires still require validation in this population.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Through a Delphi study, consensus was reached regarding recommended self-administered questionnaires to assess fear of movement, coping, self-efficacy, and catastrophizing in patients with musculoskeletal pain.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Purpose To describe the clinical course and develop prognostic models for poor recovery in patients with cervical radiculopathy who are managed conservatively. Methods Sixty-one consecutive adults with cervical radiculopathy who were referred for conservative management were included in a prospective cohort study, with 6-and 12-month follow-up assessments. Exclusion criteria were the presence of known serious pathology or spinal surgery in the past. Outcome measures were perceived recovery, neck pain intensity and disability level. Multiple imputation analyses were performed for missing values. Prognostic models were developed using multivariable logistic regression analyses, with bootstrapping techniques for internal validation. Results About 55% of participants reported to be recovered at 6 and 12 months. All multivariable models contained 2 baseline predictors. Longer symptoms duration increased the risk of poor perceived recovery, whereas the presence of paresthesia decreased this risk. A higher neck pain intensity and a longer duration of symptoms increased the risk of poor relief of neck pain. A higher disability score increased the risk of poor relief of disability, and larger active range of rotation toward the affected side decreased this risk. Following bootstrapping, the explained variance of the models varied between 0.22 and 0.30, and the median area under the curve varied between 0.75 and 0.79. Conclusions The clinical course of cervical radiculopathy appears to be long, with most of the reduction in symptoms occurring within the first 6 months. All prognostic models showed an adequate predictive performance with modest diagnostic accuracy and explained variance. Graphical abstract These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.