The Predictive Validity of OMPQ on the Rehabilitation Outcomes for Patients with Acute and Subacute Non-Specific LBP in a Chinese Population

Law, Rainbow K.Y.; Lee, Edwin W. C.; Law, Sheung Wai; Chan, Benjamin T.B.; Chen, Phoon-Ping; Szeto, Grace P. Y.

doi:10.1007/s10926-012-9404-y

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Seventeen studies included in this review were undertaken in primary healthcare settings, defined, according to the World Health Organization Declaration of Alma-Ata (1978), as involving the individual’s “ first level of contact ” with “ promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative services ” ([36] p. 2). One investigation [37] was conducted in a Hospital outpatient physiotherapy setting, considered ‘secondary care’. Five studies included ‘working adult’ populations; 13 studies included ‘general adult’ participants (some of whom were employed).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The OMPSQ offers ‘excellent’ discrimination of prolonged absenteeism at 6 months (pooled AUC from three studies [25, 39, 42] = 0.83 (0.75–0.90); and ‘acceptable’ discrimination of prolonged absenteeism at 12 months (pooled AUC from two studies [25, 37] = 0.71 (0.64–0.78). There was no statistical heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0.00%, P = 0.86).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Study confoundingF. Statistical analysis and reportingOverall assessment of risk of bias a Beneciuk et al 2012 [43]LowModerateModerateLowLowLowLowField & Newell 2012 [44]ModerateModerateLowLowLowLowLowGabel et al 2011 [39]ModerateLowModerateLowLowLowLowGrotle et al 2006 [25]ModerateLowModerateLowLowModerateLowHazard et al 1996 [49]ModerateLowLowLowLowModerateLowHazard et al 1997 [50]ModerateLowLowLowLowLowLowHeneweer et al 2007 [66]ModerateLowLowLowLowLowLowHill et al 2008 [46]ModerateModerateLowLowLowLowLowJellema et al 2007 [52]LowLowLowModerateLowLowLowKongsted et al 2015 [38]LowLowLowLowLowLowLowLaw et al 2013 [37]LowModerateLowLowModerateLowLowNewell et al 2014 [45]LowHighModerateLowLowLowHighNonclercq et al 2010 [42]ModerateLowLowLowLowLowLowShaw et al 2009 [40]LowLowLowLowLowLow…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Karran

McAuley

Traeger

et al. 2017

BMC Med

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDelivering efficient and effective healthcare is crucial for a condition as burdensome as low back pain (LBP). Stratified care strategies may be worthwhile, but rely on early and accurate patient screening using a valid and reliable instrument. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of LBP screening instruments for determining risk of poor outcome in adults with LBP of less than 3 months duration.MethodsMedline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, Web of Science, SciVerse SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from June 2014 to March 2016. Prospective cohort studies involving patients with acute and subacute LBP were included. Studies administered a prognostic screening instrument at inception and reported outcomes at least 12 weeks after screening. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data using a standardised spreadsheet. We defined poor outcome for pain to be ≥ 3 on an 11-point numeric rating scale and poor outcome for disability to be scores of ≥ 30% disabled (on the study authors' chosen disability outcome measure).ResultsWe identified 18 eligible studies investigating seven instruments. Five studies investigated the STarT Back Tool: performance for discriminating pain outcomes at follow-up was ‘non-informative’ (pooled AUC = 0.59 (0.55–0.63), n = 1153) and ‘acceptable’ for discriminating disability outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.74 (0.66–0.82), n = 821). Seven studies investigated the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire: performance was ‘poor’ for discriminating pain outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.69 (0.62–0.76), n = 360), ‘acceptable’ for disability outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.75 (0.69–0.82), n = 512), and ‘excellent’ for absenteeism outcomes (pooled AUC = 0.83 (0.75–0.90), n = 243). Two studies investigated the Vermont Disability Prediction Questionnaire and four further instruments were investigated in single studies only.ConclusionsLBP screening instruments administered in primary care perform poorly at assigning higher risk scores to individuals who develop chronic pain than to those who do not. Risks of a poor disability outcome and prolonged absenteeism are likely to be estimated with greater accuracy. It is important that clinicians who use screening tools to obtain prognostic information consider the potential for misclassification of patient risk and its consequences for care decisions based on screening. However, it needs to be acknowledged that the outcomes on which we evaluated these screening instruments in some cases had a different threshold, outcome, and time period than those they were designed to predict.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews registration number CRD42015015778.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0774-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Karran

McAuley

Traeger

et al. 2017

BMC Med

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 Further, numerous studies do not mention whether differences were examined, which could either mean that differences were examined for all or some baseline characteristics but none were found, or no differences were tested. 55…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensional screening for predicting pain problems in adults: a systematic review of screening tools and validation studies

Veirman

Ryckeghem

Paepe

et al. 2019

PR9

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Screening tools allowing to predict poor pain outcomes are widely used. Often these screening tools contain psychosocial risk factors. This review (1) identifies multidimensional screening tools that include psychosocial risk factors for the development or maintenance of pain, pain-related distress, and pain-related disability across pain problems in adults, (2) evaluates the quality of the validation studies using Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST), and (3) synthesizes methodological concerns. We identified 32 articles, across 42 study samples, validating 7 screening tools. All tools were developed in the context of musculoskeletal pain, most often back pain, and aimed to predict the maintenance of pain or pain-related disability, not pain-related distress. Although more recent studies design, conduct, analyze, and report according to best practices in prognosis research, risk of bias was most often moderate. Common methodological concerns were identified, related to participant selection (eg, mixed populations), predictors (eg, predictors were administered differently to predictors in the development study), outcomes (eg, overlap between predictors and outcomes), sample size and participant flow (eg, unknown or inappropriate handling of missing data), and analysis (eg, wide variety of performance measures). Recommendations for future research are provided.

show abstract

“…10 There are existing clinical prediction models for patients with LBP. [11][12][13][14][15] A systematic review 16 of studies published prior to 2016 summarised the discrimination of clinical prediction models to identify the prognosis in patients with LBP of less than 3 months duration. New clinical prediction models for the prognosis of LBP have been developed since 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prognostic Prediction Models for Patients with Low Back Pain: Systematic Review Protocol

Silva

Costa

Hancock

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The prognosis of acute low back pain is generally favourable in terms of pain and disability; however, outcomes vary substantially between individual patients. Clinical prediction models help in estimating the likelihood of an outcome at a certain time point. There are existing clinical prediction models focused on prognosis for patients with low back pain. To date, there is only one previous systematic review summarising the discrimination of validated clinical prediction models to identify the prognosis in patients with low back pain of less than 3 months duration. The aim of this systematic review is to identify existing developed and/or validated clinical prediction models on prognosis of patients with low back pain of less than 3 months duration, and to summarise their performance in terms of discrimination and calibration. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases will be searched, from the inception of these databases until January 2020. Eligibility criteria will be: (1) prognostic model development studies with or without external validation, or prognostic external validation studies with or without model updating; (2) with adults aged 18 or over, with ‘recent onset’ low back pain (i.e. less than 3 months duration), with or without leg pain; (3) outcomes of pain, disability, sick leave or days absent from work or return to work status, and self-reported recovery; and (4) study with a follow-up of at least 12 weeks duration. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed by the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool, and the overall quality of evidence will be rated using the Hierarchy of Evidence for Clinical Prediction Rules. Discussion: This systematic review will identify, appraise, and summarize evidence on the performance of existing prediction models for prognosis of low back pain, and may help clinicians to choose the best option of prediction model to better inform patients about their likely prognosis. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO reference number CRD42020160988

show abstract

The Predictive Validity of OMPQ on the Rehabilitation Outcomes for Patients with Acute and Subacute Non-Specific LBP in a Chinese Population

Abstract: The results confirmed the predictive validity of the Chinese version of OMPQ in screening LBP patients at risk of developing poor occupational outcomes, and appropriate interventions can be arranged for these high-risk individuals in the rehabilitation process.

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Can screening instruments accurately determine poor outcome risk in adults with recent onset low back pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Multidimensional screening for predicting pain problems in adults: a systematic review of screening tools and validation studies

Prognostic Prediction Models for Patients with Low Back Pain: Systematic Review Protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About