Literature DB >> 26720177

Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire Short-Form and STarT Back Screening Tool: Correlation and Agreement Analysis.

Fernanda Ferreira Fuhro1, Felipe Ribeiro Cabral Fagundes, Ana Carolina Taccolini Manzoni, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa, Cristina Maria Nunes Cabral.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Correlation and agreement analysis.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the Brazilian Portuguese versions of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire Short-Form (ÖMPSQ-short) and the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST)-Brazil in patients with low back pain and to verify their correlation with disability, kinesiophobia, and pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ÖMPSQ-short and the SBST were designed to identify patients at risk of developing pain and disability related to psychosocial factors.
METHODS: We assessed 130 patients, who answered the ÖMPSQ-short, SBST-Brazil, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, Tampa scale of kinesiophobia, and Pain Numerical Rating scale. The total scores of the ÖMPSQ-short and the SBST-Brazil were correlated with the other questionnaires. Cross-tabulation and Cohen κ were used to analyze the agreement between the ÖMPSQ-short and the SBST-Brazil for participant classification as low or high risk for involvement of psychosocial factors.
RESULTS: The ÖMPSQ-short and the SBST-Brazil presented good correlation between total scores (r = 0.73), good correlation with disability (ÖMPSQ-short: r = 0.72; SBST-Brazil: r = 0.76), and kinesiophobia (ÖMPSQ-short: r = 0.68; SBST-Brazil: r = 0.60) and moderate correlation with pain in the last episode (ÖMPSQ-short: r = 0.39; SBST-Brazil: r = 0.48), in last 2 weeks (ÖMPSQ-short: r = 0.39; SBST: r = 0.43), and current pain (ÖMPSQ-short: r = 0.39; SBST-Brazil: r = 0.31). Participant classification as high or low risk by the two questionnaires showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.49). A total of 83% of participants were classified correctly by the two questionnaires.
CONCLUSION: The ÖMPSQ-short and the SBST-Brazil showed good correlation between total scores and moderate agreement for patient classification in relation to the presence of psychosocial factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26720177     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001415

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  10 in total

Review 1.  Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews.

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

2.  Low Risk for Persistent Back Pain Disability Is Characterized by Lower Pain Sensitivity and Higher Physical Performance.

Authors:  Katie A Butera; Emily J Fox; Mark D Bishop; Stephen A Coombes; Jason M Beneciuk; Steven Z George
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2022-03-01

3.  Construct and discriminant validity of STarT Back Screening Tool - Brazilian version.

Authors:  Bruna Pilz; Rodrigo A Vasconcelos; Paulo P Teixeira; Wilson Mello; Freddy B Marcondes; Jonathan C Hill; Débora B Grossi
Journal:  Braz J Phys Ther       Date:  2017-01-14       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Cross-cultural adaptation of the 12-item Örebro musculoskeletal screening questionnaire to Japanese (ÖMSQ-12-J), reliability and clinicians' impressions for practicality.

Authors:  Hiroshi Takasaki; Charles Philip Gabel
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2017-08-10

5.  Rehabilitation management of low back pain - it's time to pull it all together!

Authors:  Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme; Marc Olivier Martel; Anand B Joshi; Chad E Cook
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 3.133

6.  Comparison of the Swedish STarT Back Screening Tool and the Short Form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire in patients with acute or subacute back and neck pain.

Authors:  Malin Forsbrand; Birgitta Grahn; Jonathan C Hill; Ingemar F Petersson; Charlotte Post Sennehed; Kjerstin Stigmar
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Risk classification of patients referred to secondary care for low back pain.

Authors:  Monica Unsgaard-Tøndel; Ingunn Gunnes Kregnes; Tom I L Nilsen; Gunn Hege Marchand; Torunn Askim
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-05-24       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 8.  Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews.

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

9.  Which Exercise for Low Back Pain? (WELBack) trial predicting response to exercise treatments for patients with low back pain: a validation randomised controlled trial protocol.

Authors:  Luciana G Macedo; Paul W Hodges; Geoff Bostick; Mark Hancock; Maude Laberge; Steven Hanna; Greg Spadoni; Anita Gross; Julia Schneider
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Responsiveness and minimal important change of the QuickDASH and PSFS when used among patients with shoulder pain.

Authors:  Tarjei Rysstad; Margreth Grotle; Lars Petter Klokk; Anne Therese Tveter
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 2.362

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.