W E Mehling1, A L Avins, M C Acree, T S Carey, F M Hecht. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of California San Francisco, USA; Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 9-item STarT-Back screening tool was developed in primary care patients with low back pain (LBP) to identify those at greatest risk for chronic pain and requiring targeted treatment. We conducted a secondary data analysis study to examine the performance of comparable questionnaire items in a sample of primary care patients with well-defined acute LBP. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, 605 primary care patients with LBP of less than 30 days answered a questionnaire with 6 items identical and 3 items analogous to the 9-item STarT-Back. Participants were followed up at 6 months and 2 years. STarT-Back rules were applied to classify participant's risk of chronic LBP, and the performance of the screening items in predicting outcomes was assessed using likelihood ratios. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with chronic pain at follow-up was considerably lower (6 months: 22%; 2 years: 25%) than in the STarT-Back validation cohort (40%) of patients with pain of any duration. The probability of developing chronic pain given a high-risk designation by items similar to the STarT-Back increased the pre-test probability to 31% and 35%. Likelihood ratios were close to 1. CONCLUSIONS: A risk classification schema using the recommended cut-off scores with items similar to the STarT-Back in a primary care population with strictly defined acute LBP had limited ability to identify persons who progressed to chronic pain. The results suggest caution when applying the STarT-Back in patients with acute LBP and a need to consider a modification of its cut-offs.
BACKGROUND: The 9-item STarT-Back screening tool was developed in primary care patients with low back pain (LBP) to identify those at greatest risk for chronic pain and requiring targeted treatment. We conducted a secondary data analysis study to examine the performance of comparable questionnaire items in a sample of primary care patients with well-defined acute LBP. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, 605 primary care patients with LBP of less than 30 days answered a questionnaire with 6 items identical and 3 items analogous to the 9-item STarT-Back. Participants were followed up at 6 months and 2 years. STarT-Back rules were applied to classify participant's risk of chronic LBP, and the performance of the screening items in predicting outcomes was assessed using likelihood ratios. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with chronic pain at follow-up was considerably lower (6 months: 22%; 2 years: 25%) than in the STarT-Back validation cohort (40%) of patients with pain of any duration. The probability of developing chronic pain given a high-risk designation by items similar to the STarT-Back increased the pre-test probability to 31% and 35%. Likelihood ratios were close to 1. CONCLUSIONS: A risk classification schema using the recommended cut-off scores with items similar to the STarT-Back in a primary care population with strictly defined acute LBP had limited ability to identify persons who progressed to chronic pain. The results suggest caution when applying the STarT-Back in patients with acute LBP and a need to consider a modification of its cut-offs.
Authors: Wolf E Mehling; Viranjini Gopisetty; Elizabeth Bartmess; Mike Acree; Alice Pressman; Harley Goldberg; Frederick M Hecht; Tim Carey; Andrew L Avins Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Wolf E Mehling; Viranjini Gopisetty; Michael Acree; Alice Pressman; Tim Carey; Harley Goldberg; Frederick M Hecht; Andrew L Avins Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Judith A Turner; Susan M Shortreed; Kathleen W Saunders; Linda Leresche; Jesse A Berlin; Michael Von Korff Journal: Pain Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 6.961
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: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Jonathan C Hill; David G T Whitehurst; Martyn Lewis; Stirling Bryan; Kate M Dunn; Nadine E Foster; Kika Konstantinou; Chris J Main; Elizabeth Mason; Simon Somerville; Gail Sowden; Kanchan Vohora; Elaine M Hay Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Adrian Traeger; Nicholas Henschke; Markus Hübscher; Christopher M Williams; Steven J Kamper; Chris G Maher; G Lorimer Moseley; James H McAuley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 2.692
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: Luke C Jenkins; Wei-Ju Chang; Valentina Buscemi; Matthew Liston; Barbara Toson; Michael Nicholas; Thomas Graven-Nielsen; Michael Ridding; Paul W Hodges; James H McAuley; Siobhan M Schabrun Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Malin H Forsbrand; Birgitta Grahn; Jonathan C Hill; Ingemar F Petersson; Charlotte Post Sennehed; Kjerstin Stigmar Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-12-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: J Knoop; W van Lankveld; L Beijer; F J B Geerdink; M W Heymans; T J Hoogeboom; S Hoppenbrouwers; E van Overmeeren; R Soer; C Veenhof; K C P Vissers; P J van der Wees; M Sappelli; J B Staal Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-09-03 Impact factor: 2.562
Authors: Adrian C Traeger; Nicholas Henschke; Markus Hübscher; Christopher M Williams; Steven J Kamper; Christopher G Maher; G Lorimer Moseley; James H McAuley Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 11.069