Literature DB >> 22800410

Comparing the responsiveness of a brief, multidimensional risk screening tool for back pain to its unidimensional reference standards: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Timothy H Wideman1, Jonathan C Hill, Chris J Main, Martyn Lewis, Michael J L Sullivan, Elaine M Hay.   

Abstract

Back pain is a leading cause of disability. Previous research suggests that modifiable risk factors influence recovery from back pain, and practice guidelines recommend integrating such factors within primary care management. Toward this goal, a brief, multidimensional questionnaire, the STarT Back Tool, was designed to facilitate risk assessment by reducing the need to administer multiple, unidimensional questionnaires. However, aspects of this tool's clinical utility remain unaddressed. For instance, it is unclear whether this tool is responsive to treatment-related changes or whether clinically meaningful information is lost when it replaces multiple risk questionnaires. This study compared the responsiveness of the STarT Back Tool to its corresponding full-length measures, and evaluated its ability to detect clinically meaningful improvement. The study sample included 300 participants that consulted their doctor with disabling back pain. The STarT Back Tool and its reference standard questionnaires (disability, catastrophizing, fear, and depression) were administered at baseline and 4 months later. Regression analyses tested whether, after controlling for its reference standard questionnaires, the STarT Back Tool (independent variable) predicted treatment-related changes in global improvement, pain severity, disability, catastrophizing, fear, and depression (dependent variables). Receiver operating characteristic analyses determined the level of STarT Back change needed for clinically meaningful improvement. STarT Back scores predicted changes in all dependent variables except depression. Reductions in STarT Back scores predicted meaningful improvement on all dependent variables. These findings suggest that the STarT Back Tool, instead of multiple risk questionnaires, can be used to measure recovery from back pain. Implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.
Copyright © 2012 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22800410     DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.06.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  35 in total

1.  Construct and predictive validity of the German Örebro questionnaire short form for psychosocial risk factor screening of patients with low back pain.

Authors:  Carsten Oliver Schmidt; T Kohlmann; M Pfingsten; G Lindena; U Marnitz; K Pfeifer; J F Chenot
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 3.134

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

Authors:  Lars Morsø; Peter Kent; Claus Manniche; Hanne B Albert
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Results From the Validation Cohort.

Authors:  Steven Z George; Jason M Beneciuk; Trevor A Lentz; Samuel S Wu; Yunfeng Dai; Joel E Bialosky; Giorgio Zeppieri
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2018-04-07       Impact factor: 4.751

4.  Validity and responsiveness of the French version of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in chronic low back pain.

Authors:  R Hilfiker; I A Knutti; B Raval-Roland; G Rivier; G Crombez; Emmanuelle Opsommer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Subgrouping for patients with low back pain: a multidimensional approach incorporating cluster analysis and the STarT Back Screening Tool.

Authors:  Jason M Beneciuk; Michael E Robinson; Steven Z George
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 5.820

6.  Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Samuel F Dworkin; Dagmar Amtmann; Gunnar Andersson; David Borenstein; Eugene Carragee; John Carrino; Roger Chou; Karon Cook; Anthony Delitto; Christine Goertz; Partap Khalsa; John Loeser; Sean Mackey; James Panagis; James Rainville; Tor Tosteson; Dennis Turk; Michael Von Korff; Debra K Weiner
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2015-02

7.  Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Samuel F Dworkin; Dagmar Amtmann; Gunnar Andersson; David Borenstein; Eugene Carragee; John Carrino; Roger Chou; Karon Cook; Anthony DeLitto; Christine Goertz; Partap Khalsa; John Loeser; Sean Mackey; James Panagis; James Rainville; Tor Tosteson; Dennis Turk; Michael Von Korff; Debra K Weiner
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 5.820

Review 8.  The Role of Psychosocial Processes in the Development and Maintenance of Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Robert R Edwards; Robert H Dworkin; Mark D Sullivan; Dennis C Turk; Ajay D Wasan
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.820

9.  Prediction of Persistent Musculoskeletal Pain at 12 Months: A Secondary Analysis of the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) Validation Cohort Study.

Authors:  Jason M Beneciuk; Trevor A Lentz; Ying He; Samuel S Wu; Steven Z George
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2018-05-01

10.  Psychometric Evaluation of the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) Tool: Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity.

Authors:  Katie A Butera; Steven Z George; Trevor A Lentz
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 5.820

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.