STUDY DESIGN: Observational prospective study. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the reliability and validity of the French version of the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The SBST is a recently validated tool developed to identify subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) to guide early secondary prevention in primary care. METHODS: Outpatients 18 years or older with LBP, attending a rehabilitation center, a back school, a private physiotherapy unit, or a fitness center were included. Patients were assessed through the SBST, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36 questionnaire, and a pain visual analogue scale. Test-retest reliability was assessed with Kappa score or the intraclass correlation coefficient, internal consistency of the Psychological subscale with the Cronbach α coefficient, construct validity with the Spearman correlation coefficient, and floor and ceiling effects by percentage frequency of lowest or highest possible score achieved by respondents. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients with LBP were included. The test-retest reliability of the SBST total score was excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.90 (0.81-0.95). The Cronbach α coefficient was 0.73 showing a good internal consistency for the Psychological subscale. High Spearman correlation coefficients of 0.74 between SBST and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and 0.74 between the SBST and Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire were observed. As expected, low-to-moderate correlations were observed between the SBST total score and some dissimilar measures of the Short-Form 36. The lowest possible SBST score was observed for 8 patients (7.4%), whereas only 3 patients (2.8%) had the highest possible SBST score. CONCLUSION: The French version of the SBST is a reliable and valid questionnaire consistent with the original English version. Therefore, this new version may help French-speaking clinicians and scientists to stratify patients with LBP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
STUDY DESIGN: Observational prospective study. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the reliability and validity of the French version of the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The SBST is a recently validated tool developed to identify subgroups of patients with low back pain (LBP) to guide early secondary prevention in primary care. METHODS: Outpatients 18 years or older with LBP, attending a rehabilitation center, a back school, a private physiotherapy unit, or a fitness center were included. Patients were assessed through the SBST, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36 questionnaire, and a pain visual analogue scale. Test-retest reliability was assessed with Kappa score or the intraclass correlation coefficient, internal consistency of the Psychological subscale with the Cronbach α coefficient, construct validity with the Spearman correlation coefficient, and floor and ceiling effects by percentage frequency of lowest or highest possible score achieved by respondents. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients with LBP were included. The test-retest reliability of the SBST total score was excellent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.90 (0.81-0.95). The Cronbach α coefficient was 0.73 showing a good internal consistency for the Psychological subscale. High Spearman correlation coefficients of 0.74 between SBST and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and 0.74 between the SBST and Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire were observed. As expected, low-to-moderate correlations were observed between the SBST total score and some dissimilar measures of the Short-Form 36. The lowest possible SBST score was observed for 8 patients (7.4%), whereas only 3 patients (2.8%) had the highest possible SBST score. CONCLUSION: The French version of the SBST is a reliable and valid questionnaire consistent with the original English version. Therefore, this new version may help French-speaking clinicians and scientists to stratify patients with LBP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Authors: Scott D Tagliaferri; Maia Angelova; Xiaohui Zhao; Patrick J Owen; Clint T Miller; Tim Wilkin; Daniel L Belavy Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2020-07-09
Authors: Susanna Piironen; Markus Paananen; Marianne Haapea; Markku Hupli; Paavo Zitting; Katja Ryynänen; Esa-Pekka Takala; Katariina Korniloff; Jonathan C Hill; Arja Häkkinen; Jaro Karppinen Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Laura E Simons; Allison Smith; Camila Ibagon; Rachael Coakley; Deirdre E Logan; Neil Schechter; David Borsook; Jonathan C Hill Journal: Pain Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Sven Karstens; Katja Krug; Jonathan C Hill; Christian Stock; Jost Steinhaeuser; Joachim Szecsenyi; Stefanie Joos Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 2.362