Comparison between the STarT Back Screening Tool and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire: Which tool for what purpose? A semi-systematic review / Alexis Lheureux in Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine, Vol. 62, n°3 (Mai 2019)

Public ISBD [article]  inAnnals of physical and rehabilitation medicine > Vol. 62, n°3 (Mai 2019) . - p. 178-188 Titre : Comparison between the STarT Back Screening Tool and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire: Which tool for what purpose? A semi-systematic review Type de document : texte imprimé Auteurs : Alexis Lheureux ; Anne Berquin Année de publication : 2019 Article en page(s) : p. 178-188 Note générale : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2018.09.007 Langues : Anglais (eng) Mots-clés : STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST)  Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ)  Low back pain  Predicting questionnaires Résumé : 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 < 3 months, 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 NRS ≥ 3 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 Index ≥ 30% at 6 months. A single study showed no difference between the SBST and the OMPSQ to predict absenteeism ≥ 30 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. Permalink : ./index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=84117 [article] Comparison between the STarT Back Screening Tool and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire: Which tool for what purpose? A semi-systematic review [texte imprimé] / Alexis Lheureux ; Anne Berquin . - 2019 . - p. 178-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2018.09.007 Langues : Anglais (eng) in Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine > Vol. 62, n°3 (Mai 2019) . - p. 178-188 Mots-clés : STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST)  Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (OMPSQ)  Low back pain  Predicting questionnaires Résumé : 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 < 3 months, 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 NRS ≥ 3 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 Index ≥ 30% at 6 months. A single study showed no difference between the SBST and the OMPSQ to predict absenteeism ≥ 30 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. Permalink : ./index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=84117

Exemplaires (1)

Cote	Support	Localisation	Section	Disponibilité
Revue	Revue	Centre de Documentation HELHa Campus Montignies	Armoires à volets	Document exclu du prêt - à consulter sur place Exclu du prêt

---

1 (1 - 1 / 1)