Suscribirse

Comparison between the STarT Back Screening Tool and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire: Which tool for what purpose? A semi-systematic review - 30/05/19

Doi : 10.1016/j.rehab.2018.09.007 
Alexis Lheureux a, , Anne Berquin b
a Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique, Neuro Musculo Skeletal lab, Avenue Mounier 53/B1.53.07, 1200 Brussels, Belgium 
b Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10/1650, 1200 Brussels, Belgium 

Corresponding author. Avenue Mounier 53/B1.53.07, 1200 Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium.Avenue Mounier 53/B1.53.07Woluwe-Saint-Lambert1200Belgium

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
Artículo gratuito.

Conéctese para beneficiarse!

Abstract

Background

Prevention of chronicization of low back pain requires accurate detection of at-risk patients. Questionnaires have been validated, including the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ). This review aims to compare these questionnaires in terms of predictive value and in terms of aims, to guide the choice in clinical practice.

Methods

This study is a semi-systematic literature review. Studies evaluating at least one of the questionnaires and written between 1997 and October 10th 2017 were selected from Pubmed database. Inclusion criteria were pain duration<3months, outcomes including pain, function and/or global recovery. For work outcomes, inclusion criteria were extended to chronic patients. Studies had to provide information on sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC Curve (AUC).

Results

Twenty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria (7 SBST, 21 original OMPSQ, 3 short OMPSQ). The OMPSQ best predicted a Pain NRS3 at 3 months (AUC=0.64 (0.50–0.78)) and at 6 months (AUC between 0.70 (no confidence interval provided) and 0.84 (0.71–0.97)). The SBST and the OMPSQ are comparable to predict an Oswestry Disability Index30% at 6 months. A single study showed no difference between the SBST and the OMPSQ to predict absenteeism30 days at 6 months. The two questionnaires cannot be compared for “global recovery” outcomes.

Conclusion

The OMPSQ seems better than the SBST for predicting “pain” and “work” outcomes, the SBST may be better for “function” outcomes. These results should be taken with caution because of the high heterogeneity between studies. It should be noted that the OMPSQ was elaborated with the aim of creating a prognostic tool while the SBST was devised as a treatment-allocating tool and is easier to use in clinical practice. This should guide the choice of using one questionnaire rather than the other.

El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.

Keywords : STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST), Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ), Low back pain, Predicting questionnaires


Esquema


 This semi-systematic review compared 2 prognostic questionnaires about back pain (STarT Back Screening Tool and Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire) in terms of prognostic power and clinical aims, to guide the healthcare provider in choosing a questionnaire. By its large inclusion criteria, our study is the broadest on the topic. Although the 2 questionnaires present good and equivalent predictive power, we highlight important differences between them in clinical objectives and usefulness, which may be the most important to consider when deciding which tool to use.


© 2018  Publicado por Elsevier Masson SAS.
Añadir a mi biblioteca Eliminar de mi biblioteca Imprimir
Exportación

    Exportación citas

  • Fichero

  • Contenido

Vol 62 - N° 3

P. 178-188 - mai 2019 Regresar al número
Artículo precedente Artículo precedente
  • Cross-cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome measures: A solution or a problem?
  • V. Prakash, S. Shah, K. Hariohm
| Artículo siguiente Artículo siguiente
  • Blocking neuromuscular junctions with botulinum toxin A injection enhances neurological heterotopic ossification development after spinal cord injury in mice
  • Marjorie Salga, Hsu-Wen Tseng, Kylie A. Alexander, Beulah Jose, Cedryck Vaquette, Charlotte Debaud, Laure Gatin, François Genêt, Jean-Pierre Levesque

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.

Mi cuenta


Declaración CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM se declara a la CNIL, la declaración N º 1286925.

En virtud de la Ley N º 78-17 del 6 de enero de 1978, relativa a las computadoras, archivos y libertades, usted tiene el derecho de oposición (art.26 de la ley), el acceso (art.34 a 38 Ley), y correcta (artículo 36 de la ley) los datos que le conciernen. Por lo tanto, usted puede pedir que se corrija, complementado, clarificado, actualizado o suprimido información sobre usted que son inexactos, incompletos, engañosos, obsoletos o cuya recogida o de conservación o uso está prohibido.
La información personal sobre los visitantes de nuestro sitio, incluyendo su identidad, son confidenciales.
El jefe del sitio en el honor se compromete a respetar la confidencialidad de los requisitos legales aplicables en Francia y no de revelar dicha información a terceros.


Todo el contenido en este sitio: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, sus licenciantes y colaboradores. Se reservan todos los derechos, incluidos los de minería de texto y datos, entrenamiento de IA y tecnologías similares. Para todo el contenido de acceso abierto, se aplican los términos de licencia de Creative Commons.