Abstract
Introduction
The predictive ability of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) in secondary care settings has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to determine the SBT’s predictive ability in a Danish secondary care setting and compare this to a Danish primary care setting.
Methods
Poor clinical outcome at 6 months (>30 points on a 0–100 Roland Morris Disability Scale) was calculated in secondary care (n = 960) and primary care (n = 172) cohorts. The cohorts were stratified into SBT subgroups and estimates of additional risk for poor outcome were calculated [relative risk (RR), unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios]. The discriminative ability was determined using the area under the curve statistic.
Results
In secondary care 69.0 % and in primary care 40.2 % had poor outcome on activity limitation. Although significant, the predictive ability of the SBT in secondary care (medium-risk RR 1.5, high-risk RR 1.7) was not as strong as in primary care (medium-risk RR 2.3, high-risk RR 3.5). Adjusting for episode duration and pain intensity only changed the predictive ability marginally in secondary care. The discriminative ability of the SBT was similar in both cohorts despite differences in the predictive ability.
Conclusion
The SBT had less predictive ability in a Danish secondary care setting compared to a Danish primary care setting for persistent activity limitation at 6 months follow-up. SBT-targeted treatment implications in secondary care were not investigated in this study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hill JC, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Mullis R, Main CJ, Foster NE et al (2008) A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment. Arthritis Rheum 59(5):632–641
Beneciuk JM, Bishop MD, Fritz JM, Robinson ME, Asal NR, Nisenzon AN et al (2012) The STarT Back Screening Tool and individual psychological measures: evaluation of prognostic capabilities for low back pain clinical outcomes in outpatient physical therapy settings. Phys Ther 93:321–333
Hill JC, Dunn KM, Main CJ, Hay EM (2010) Sub grouping low back pain: a comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire. Eur J Pain 14(1):83–89
Wideman TH, Hill JC, Main CJ, Lewis M, Sullivan MJ, Hay EM (2012) 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. Pain 153(11):2182–2191
Bruyere O, Demoulin M, Brereton C, Humblet F, Flynn D, Hill JC et al (2012) Translation validation of a new back pain screening questionnaire (the STarT Back Screening Tool) in French. Arch Public Health 70(1):12
Gusi N, Del Pozo-Cruz B, Olivares PR, Hernandez-Mocholi M, Hill JC (2011) The Spanish version of the “STarT Back Screening Tool” (SBST) in different subgroups. Aten Primaria 43:356–361
Morso L, Albert H, Kent P, Manniche C, Hill J (2011) Translation and discriminative validation of the STarT Back Screening Tool into Danish. Eur Spine J 20(12):2166–2173
Fritz JM, Beneciuk JM, George SZ (2011) Relationship between categorization with the STarT Back Screening Tool and prognosis for people receiving physical therapy for low back pain. Phys Ther 91(5):722–732
Hill JC, Whitehurst DG, Lewis M, Bryan S, Dunn KM, Foster NE et al (2011) Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 378(9802):1560–1571
Sowden G, Hill JC, Konstantinou K, Khanna M, Main CJ, Salmon P et al (2012) Targeted treatment in primary care for low back pain: the treatment system and clinical training programmes used in the IMPaCT Back study (ISRCTN 55174281). Fam Pract 29(1):50–62
Foster NE, Mullis R, Young J, Doyle C, Lewis M, Whitehurst D et al (2010) IMPaCT Back study protocol. Implementation of subgrouping for targeted treatment systems for low back pain patients in primary care: a prospective population-based sequential comparison. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:186
Moons KG, Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice. BMJ 338:b606
de VetHenrica CW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL (2011) Validity. Measurement in medicine, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 150–201
Morso L, Kent P, Albert HB, Manniche C (2013) Is the psychosocial profile of people with low back pain seeking care in Danish primary care different from those in secondary care? Man Ther 18(1):54–59
Morso L, Kent P, Albert HB, Hill JC, Kongsted A, Manniche C (2013) The predictive and external validity of the STarT Back Tool in Danish primary care. Eur Spine J
Albert HB, Briggs AM, Kent P, Byrhagen A, Hansen C, Kjaergaard K (2011) The prevalence of MRI defined spinal path anatomies and their association with modic changes in individuals seeking care for low back pain. Eur Spine J 20(8):1355–1362
Albert HB, Jensen AM, Dahl D, Rasmussen MN (2003) Criteria validation of the Roland Morris Questionnaire. A Danish translation of the international scale for the assessment of functional level in patients with low back pain and sciatica. Ugeskr Laeger 165(18):1875–1880
Childs JD, Fritz JM, Flynn TW, Irrgang JJ, Johnson KK, Majkowski GR et al (2004) A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain most likely to benefit from spinal manipulation: a validation study. Ann Intern Med 141(12):920–928
Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Brennan GP (2008) Predictive validity of initial fear avoidance beliefs in patients with low back pain receiving physical therapy: is the FABQ a useful screening tool for identifying patients at risk for a poor recovery? Eur Spine J 17(1):70–79
Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8(2):141–144
Kent P, Lauridsen HH (2011) Managing missing scores on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(22):1878–1884
Kirkwood BRSJAC (1988) Measurement error: assessment and implications. Essential Medical Statistics, 2nd edn. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, pp 429–446
Grotle M, Vollestad NK, Brox JI (2006) Clinical course and impact of fear-avoidance beliefs in low back pain: prospective cohort study of acute and chronic low back pain: II. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(9):1038–1046
Chou R, Shekelle P (2010) Will this patient develop persistent disabling low back pain? JAMA 303(13):1295–1302
Albert HB, Godskesen M, Korsholm L, Westergaard JG (2006) Risk factors in developing pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85(5):539–544
Grotle M, Foster NE, Dunn KM, Croft P (2010) Are prognostic indicators for poor outcome different for acute and chronic low back pain consulters in primary care? Pain 151(3):790–797
Pengel LH, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Refshauge KM (2003) Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis. BMJ 327(7410):323
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Morsø, L., Kent, P., Manniche, C. et al. The predictive ability of the STarT Back Screening Tool in a Danish secondary care setting. Eur Spine J 23, 120–128 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2861-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2861-y