Translation and validation of the Persian version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with nonspecific low back pain

People With Low Back Pain Exhibit Higher Trunk Muscle Activity and Impaired Postural Control During Static and Dynamic Functional Tasks: A Cross-Sectional Study

The study compared superficial trunk muscle activity and postural control among an active extension subgroup of people with nonspecific chronic low back pain (AE-NSCLBP) with painfree controls during functional tasks. Thirty-two people (17 people with low back pain [LBP] and 15 painfree controls) participated in this study. Muscle activity of 5 trunk muscles and postural control were investigated during both standing tasks (eyes open/closed; single/double-leg balance) and dynamic functional tasks (spinal forward flexion and return, and a sit to stand transfer). Results showed that during single-leg standing, people with AE-NSCLBP exhibit higher muscle activity than painfree controls for 3 trunk muscles, especially with their eyes closed. There were no significant differences in muscle activity between eye conditions during double-leg standing and sit to stand transfer, forward flexion, and return from flexion. The AE-NSCLBP subgroup also demonstrated significantly impaired postural control (lower time to boundary) in 4 of 8 conditions, especially during single-leg standing and with their eyes closed. These findings show people with LBP typically demonstrated greater trunk muscle activity and poorer postural control while maintaining standing posture. This pattern was most evident when the postural challenge was higher, such as single-leg standing or with eyes closed. While this study design cannot infer causality, these findings have implications for LBP rehabilitation, particularly regarding approaches which seek to alter muscle activation among people with LBP.

Effect of multidimensional physiotherapy on non-specific chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many people with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) do not recover with current conventional management. Systematic reviews show multidimensional treatment improves pain better than usual active interventions. It is unclear whether multidimensional physiotherapy improves pain better than usual physiotherapy. This study determines the effectiveness of this treatment to reduce pain and disability and improve quality of life, pain cognitions, and electroencephalographic pattern in individuals with NSCLBP.

METHODS

70 eligible participants aged 18 to 50 years with NSCLBP were randomized into either the experimental group (multidimensional physiotherapy) or the active control group (usual physiotherapy). Pain intensity was measured as the primary outcome. Disability, quality of life, pain Catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, fear Avoidance Beliefs, active lumbar range of motion, and brain function were measured as secondary outcomes. The outcomes were measured at pre-treatment, post-treatment, 10, and 22 weeks. Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat approaches.

RESULTS

There were 17 men and 18 women in the experimental group (mean [SD] age, 34.57 [6.98] years) and 18 men and 17 women in the active control group (mean [SD] age, 35.94 [7.51] years). Multidimensional physiotherapy was not more effective than usual physiotherapy at reducing pain intensity at the end of treatment. At the 10 weeks and 22 weeks follow-up, there were statistically significant differences between multidimensional physiotherapy and usual physiotherapy (mean difference at 10 weeks, -1.54; 95% CI, -2.59 to -0.49 and mean difference at 22 weeks, -2.20; 95% CI, - 3.25 to - 1.15). The standardized mean difference and their 95% confidence intervals (Cohen's d) revealed a large effect of pain at 22 weeks: (Cohen's d, -0.89; 95% CI (-1.38 to-0.39)). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized controlled trial, multidimensional physiotherapy resulted in statistically and clinically significant improvements in pain compared to usual physiotherapy in individuals with NSCLBP at 10 and 22 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04270422; IRCT IRCT20140810018754N11.

Reproducibility and content validity of the Slovenian version of the STarT Back Screening Tool for chronicity risk assessment in patients with low back pain

Chronic pain is the most common cause of impaired work ability and thus represents a significant social and economic burden. STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) is the most often used screening tool for rapid identification and classification of patients for their risk of development of chronic low back pain, which is valid and reliable in the original English version and translation into other languages. The aim of the present study was to translate the SBT into Slovenian and to evaluate its content validity and reliability. We translated the SBT from English into Slovenian and back according to the standard protocol. We tested its metric properties on a group of patients with low back pain aged 18 to 65 years. The reliability of the reassessment was calculated using the ICC and specific agreement, while the content validity of the questionnaire was determined using the ceiling and floor effect. Of the 42 patients who participated in the study, 42.9% were at low risk, 33.3% were at moderate risk, and 23.8% were at high risk of developing chronic pain, according to the SBT. The ICC for the entire sample was 0.96 (95% CI 0.92-0.98). The Slovenian translation of the SBT showed excellent specific agreement between the initial and repeat assessments: 91.4% for the low-risk group, 85.7% for the moderate-risk group, and 95.2% for the high-risk group. In addition, it showed good content validity, as no ceiling or floor effects were detected. The Slovenian translation of the questionnaire is suitable for clinical use.

Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Thai version of the modified STarT Back Screening Tool in individuals with neck pain

BACKGROUND

The modified STarT Back Screening Tool (mSBST) can be used to classify individuals with neck pain (NP) into low, medium, and high risk for chronicity. However, the mSBST-Thai version (mSBST-TH) for NP does not exist.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to adapt the SBST-TH into the mSBST-TH and evaluate its psychometric properties.

METHODS

The adaptation process committee included one researcher, one musculoskeletal physical therapist, and one Thai linguistic expert. A total of 261 participants (aged 20-70 years) with NP in Phitsanulok Province were invited to complete the mSBST-TH, visual analogue scale, neck disability index, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ), pain catastrophizing scale, EuroQol five-dimensions five-levels questionnaire (EQ5D-5L), and EQ5D-5L-visual analogue scale (EQ5D-5L-VAS). Fifty participants completed the mSBST-TH twice, with an interval of 48 hours to perform test-retest reliability.

RESULTS

The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the mSBST-TH total score was 0.73. Factor analysis revealed two components, psychosocial and physical. The intraclass correlation coefficient of test-retest reliability was found to be 0.81 for the total score. Moderate correlations were found between the mSBST-TH and all questionnaires, except for the FABQ-work. The discriminative validity was excellent between the mSBST-TH total score and the EQ5D-5L-VAS. The standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change of the mSBST-TH total score were 0.56 and 1.56, respectively. No significant floor and ceiling effects were found.

CONCLUSION

The mSBST-TH was successfully adapted with no ambiguity reported. Furthermore, the mSBST-TH has presented acceptable psychometric evaluation.

Risk Stratification in a Tertiary Care Spine Centre: Comparison Between STarTBack and OSPRO-YF Screening Tools

Purpose

STarT Back Screening Tool and OSPRO-YF scales have been reported to be accurate tools for estimating risk for the development of persistent pain or prolonged disability in primary care settings. We performed a comparison of construct convergent and known-group validity and ceiling floor effect (CFE) of these tools using a common sample of patients seen at a tertiary care spine centre.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study of patients with and without a work-related back injury. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used as the reference outcome measure for convergent validity. For known-group validity, we examined the ability of the scales to differentiate between different levels of compensation, presence of non-organic signs, and work status. The CFE values were calculated.

Results

Fifty consecutive injured workers were included along with 50 patients without an active compensation claim related to their low back pain. STarTBack and OSPRO-YF had moderate to high associations with the depression component of the HADS (0.69 to 0.77 respectively) with a statistically significant difference in favour of the OSPRO-YF. STarTBack's risk stratification categories were able to differentiate patients with a compensable injury, non-organic signs, and inability to work (p values ranging from 0.002 to < 0.001). The physical activity and work fear-avoidance beliefs constructs of the OSPRO-YF consistently outperformed other yellow flag constructs (p values ranging from 0.008 to < 0.001). The psychological sub-score of STarTBack showed a ceiling effect. There was a floor effect for the negative affect domain of OSPRO-YF. Neither total score had a floor or ceiling effect.

Conclusions

STarTBack and OSPRO-YF are short screening tools with acceptable convergent and known-group construct validity and no floor or ceiling effect of their total score. Both tools could assist with the identification, evaluation, and management of psychological distress in patients presenting to tertiary care spine centres.

Factor Structure, Validity, and Reliability of the STarT Back Screening Tool in Italian Obese and Non-obese Patients With Low Back Pain

Background: The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is a self-report questionnaire developed for prognostic purposes which evaluates risk factors for disability outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain. Previous studies found that its use enables to provide a cost-effective stratified care. However, its dimensionality has been assessed only using exploratory approaches, and reports on its psychometric properties are conflicting. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the factorial structure and the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST). Materials and Methods: Patients with medical diagnosis of low back pain were enrolled from a rehabilitation unit of a tertiary care hospital specialized in obesity care (Sample 1) and from a clinical internship center of an osteopathic training institute (Sample 2). At baseline and after 7 days patients were asked to fill a battery of self-report questionnaires. The factorial structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity of the SBST were assessed. Results: One hundred forty-six patients were enrolled (62 from Sample 1 and 84 from Sample 2). The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the fit of the original two-correlated factors model was adequate (CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03). Cronbach's α of the total scale (α = 0.64) and of the subscales (physical subscale α = 0.55; psychological subscale α = 0.61) was below the cutoffs, partly because of the low correlation of item 2 with the other items. Test-retest reliability was adequate (ICC = 0.84). The SBST had moderate correlations with comparisons questionnaires, except for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, which had a high correlation (r = 0.65). Discussion: The SBST has adequate psychometric properties and can be used to assess prognostic factors for disability in low back pain patients.

Improving the Predictive Validity of the Dutch STarT Back Tool

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the predictive validity of the Dutch version of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) can be improved by (1) using other cut-off values, (2) changing the items, or (3) adding prognostic factors to the SBT.

DESIGN

This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study (PRINS study: Prevalence of Risk groups in Neck- and back pain patients according to the STarT back screening tool) in patients with low back or neck pain.

METHODS

The predictive validity was calculated with a relative risk ratio and a Spearman correlation. The new cut-off values were calculated with receiver operating characteristic curves. Replacing items of the SBT and adding new items were assessed with logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients were included; 51% were categorized as having low risk, 39% as moderate risk, and 11% as high risk. Changing the cut-off total score to ≤2 and the subscore to ≥5 led to an improvement of the Spearman correlation and RR. Adding the item "duration of the complaints" improved the RR for moderate risk (3.6) (95% CI = 1.6-7.9) and for high risk (9.0) (95% CI = 4.2-19.1) compared with low risk. The new Spearman correlation was improved to rs = 0.37.

CONCLUSION

The predictive validity was improved by adding the item "duration of the complaints" and changing the cut-off values.

Efficacy of a multidimensional versus usual care physiotherapy on pain and electroencephalography (EEG) spectrum in chronic nonspecific low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP) is a major public health and global socioeconomic burden associated with a complex interplay of biopsychosocial factors. Despite scientific signs of progress, treatment of NSCLBP often tends to stick to a biomechanical model, without targeting psychological and social factors. To enhance the clinical efficacy of usual physiotherapy for NSCLBP, the development of clinical strategies is to be pursued. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of multidimensional physiotherapy based on a biopsychosocial approach compared to usual care physiotherapy, on clinical findings and electroencephalography spectrum in non-specific chronic low back pain.

METHODS

This study is a triple-blind, two-arm (1:1) randomized controlled trial with a 4 months follow-up. Seventy NSCLBP patients will be randomly allocated to either the experimental (multidimensional physiotherapy) or the active control group (usual physiotherapy); each group will receive 6 weeks of physiotherapy. The main outcome is pain and secondary outcomes are brain function, quality of life, disability, lumbar flexion range of motion, and psychosocial correlates. Assessment will be performed at baseline, post-treatment, and at 1 and 4 months follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Findings may provide evidence on the effectiveness of multidimensional physiotherapy on clinical findings and brain characteristics and might provide evidence towards showing the role of brain and biopsychosocial factors on chronic pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04270422 , Registered on 17 February 2020, IRCT Identifier: IRCT20140810018754N11.

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Thai version of the STarT Back Screening Tool in patients with non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a top musculoskeletal problem and a substantial cause of socioeconomic burden internationally. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is a useful screening tool to manage patients with LBP but it is unavailable in Thai. Therefore, the aims of this study were to translate and cross-culturally adapt the SBST into a Thai version (SBST-TH) and validate its psychometric properties (e.g., factor analysis, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, agreement, convergent validity and discriminative validity).

METHODS

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the SBST into Thai version were conducted according to standard guidelines. A total of 200 participants with non-specific LBP were invited to complete the SBST, visual analogue scale for pain intensity, Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire, pain catastrophising scale, hospital anxiety and depression scale and the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Thirty participants completed the SBST-TH twice with an interval of 48 h to evaluate test-retest reliability.

RESULTS

Factor analysis demonstrated two (physical and psychological) components for the SBST-TH (39.38% of the total variance). The Cronbach's alpha (0.86 for total score and 0.76 for psychosocial subscore) represent satisfactory internal consistency. The acceptability of intraclass correlation coefficient was found in the total (0.73) and subscore (0.79). The areas under the curve (AUC) for the total score ranged 0.67-0.85 and 0.66-0.75 for subscore. The excellent discriminative validity was observed (AUC = 0.85, 95% confidence interval = 0.72, 0.97) between the total score of the SBST-TH and disability (RMDQ). Spearman's correlation coefficients represented moderate to strong correlation (0.32-0.56) between the SBST-TH and all questionnaires. The findings suggest a good relationship between the SBST-TH and disability and quality of life. Owing to the results from the convergent and discriminative validity, construct validity of the SBST-TH can be supported. The minimal detectable changes of the total score and subscore were 2.04 and 1.60, respectively. Significant floor and ceiling effects were not found in the SBST-TH.

CONCLUSION

The SBST-TH was successfully translated and adapted. It is a valid and reliable tool to classify Thai patients with non-specific LBP into low, moderate and high risks for chronicity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TCTR20191009005 #.

Low Back Pain-Related Disability Is Associated with Pain-Related Beliefs Across Divergent Non-English-Speaking Populations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined relationships between low back pain (LBP)-related disability and pain beliefs, including pain catastrophizing, pain-related fear, self-efficacy, and back pain beliefs, in non-English-speaking populations. Additionally, the effects of selected cultural factors (i.e., language/geographic area) on the strength of relationships were examined.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched. Studies included observational or randomized control clinical trials. Eligible studies had to report estimates of the association between pain beliefs and disability. Pooled estimates of correlation coefficients were obtained through random-effects meta-analysis methods.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine studies, (n = 15,383) were included. Moderate correlations were identified between disability and pain self-efficacy (chronic LBP r = -0.51, P ≤ 0.001), between disability and pain catastrophizing (acute LBP r = 0.47, P ≤ 0.001; chronic LBP r = 0.44, P ≤ 0.001), and also between disability and pain-related fear (chronic LBP r = 0.41, P ≤ 0.001). Otherwise, weak correlations were identified between disability and most pain beliefs (range r = -0.23 to 0.35, P ≤ 0.001). Pooled correlation coefficients between disability and all pain beliefs (except the Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire-Work subscale) represent medium effects and suggest that lower disability was associated with greater pain self-efficacy, less pain-related fear, less catastrophic thinking, and less negative back pain beliefs about the nature and cause of back pain. Results were consistent across most language groups and geographic regions; few studies reported ethnicity or religion.

DISCUSSION

LBP-related disability was associated with pain-related beliefs, with consistency demonstrated for each pain belief construct across divergent non-English-speaking populations. Further research examining cultural factors, such as ethnicity or religion, and with a more diverse population is warranted.

Clustering of patients with chronic low back pain in terms of physical and psychological factors: A cross-sectional study based on the STarT Back Screening Tool

BACKGROUND

The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) is a multidimensional questionnaire consisting of physical and psychological factors which categorizes the patients in the low, medium or high risk subgroups.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between SBT-based subgrouping and clustering of patients with LBP using uni-dimensional psychological, clinical and physical examination measures.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-seven patients with chronic LBP completed the SBT and uni-dimensional psychological, disability and pain questionnaires. Physical impairments were evaluated through the Physical Impairment Index (PII). Hierarchical and K-means methods were used for cluster analysis. Between-clusters differences and the association between the clusters and SBT-based subgrouping were investigated.

RESULTS

Three clusters were identified. The derived clusters were labeled severe, moderate and mild physical-psychological-distress clusters, because pain intensity, disability, psychological and physical factors were relatively high, moderate or low, respectively. Most of the patients in moderate and mild physical-psychological distress clusters were categorized as medium risk based on SBT. The mean difference for the PII was higher than that of psychological factors between moderate and mild physical-psychological-distress clusters.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in low and high risk subgroups of SBT were sufficiently differentiated, but patients in a medium risk subgroup had a different profile based on PII. Including additional physical factors in the SBT may be required to better differentiate among patients.

Construct validity and internal consistency of the modified Persian version of the STarT Back Screening Tool

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Considering the importance of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) and its increasing spread, the need for instruments for the accurate diagnosis of back pain is evident in order to offer more effective treatment. One such instrument is the STarT Back Screening Tool (STarT) which is examined by numerous studies, while some of its psychometric dimensions still require attention. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the internal consistency and construct validity of this questionnaire to propose a modified version.

METHOD

In this cross-sectional study, the data of 295 patients with NSLBP were analyzed. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess internal consistency, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to assess construct validity. The Χ2/df, GFI, CFI, and RMSEA indices were also utilized as the goodness-of-fit criteria. Data analysis was performed in SPSS, AMOS, and EQS programs.

RESULTS

Goodness-of-fit indicators were calculated for the original Persian version of the questionnaire, showing an improper fit (RMSEA = 0.162). According to the measures of sampling adequacy (MSA) of the questions, Questions 1 and 8 were deleted, resulting in an improved index (RMSEA = 0.062). All the regression coefficients in the CFA model were significant (p < 0.001for all 7 parameters).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, the modified Persian version of the STarT is simpler and more practical than the previous version, serving as a valid and reliable tool for assessing patients with low back pain. With respect to the goodness-of-fit indices, we recommend that more studies with larger samples be conducted on different populations.

Outcome of group physical therapy treatment for non-specific low back pain patients can be predicted with the cross-culturally adapted and validated Hungarian version STarT back screening tool

PURPOSE

The STarT Back Tool was developed to identify the specific modifiable prognostic factors for non-specific low back pain and to classify the patients into risk groups; low, medium and high risk of chronicity. Applied therapeutic approaches often involve group physical therapy. The aim of this study was the cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Hungarian version of the STarT Back Tool and to investigate the predictive ability for global treatment outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study (N = 133) was carried out involving non-specific low back pain patients. Internal consistency, construct validity, reliability and prognostic discriminative ability have been investigated. After 3 months of treatment global outcome was evaluated.

RESULTS

A 2-factor structure was found, with moderate internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.89 for the total and psychosocial subscale 0.62). Between the Hungarian STarT Back Tool, the Oswestry Disability Index, leg pain, low back pain, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and the physical subscale of the quality of life questionnaire, significant good to excellent- correlation was found (r > 0.41). The test-retest analysis showed excellent reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.93) with standard error measurement being 0.49 (minimal detectable change = 1.37). The Area Under the Curve for baseline STarT Back Tool scores was 0.7 and 0.8 for global treatment outcome and distress, respectively. The Area Under the Curve for global treatment outcome versus STarT risk groups proved to be 0.76 representing adequate discriminative ability.

CONCLUSION

The successful cross-cultural adaptation was followed by the validity analysis and as a result the Hungarian version of the STarT Back Tool proved to be a reliable and valid tool in the identification of risk groups of chronicity for patients with low back pain. Patients allocated to the high-risk group were more likely experiencing poor outcome at 3 months follow up, thus it can be used to predict outcome if treated with group physical therapy.Implication for rehabilitationLow back pain is a multifactorial disease where physical and psychosocial risk factors play a role in the development and prognosis of the disease.The STarT-H can be considered as a reliable, valid measurement tool in the identification of risk groups of chronicity for patients with low back pain.Clinical relevance of the STarT-H is that it can be used to stratify patients into risk groups of chronicity in different Hungarian speaking healthcare settings.According to our findings the STarT-H can also be applied to predict global treatment outcome in low back pain patients if treated with group physical therapy.

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) could enhance the ability to detect patterns of clinical characteristics in low-back pain (LBP) and guide treatment. We conducted three systematic reviews to address the following aims: (a) review the status of AI/ML research in LBP, (b) compare its status to that of two established LBP classification systems (STarT Back, McKenzie). AI/ML in LBP is in its infancy: 45 of 48 studies assessed sample sizes <1000 people, 19 of 48 studies used ≤5 parameters in models, 13 of 48 studies applied multiple models and attained high accuracy, 25 of 48 studies assessed the binary classification of LBP versus no-LBP only. Beyond the 48 studies using AI/ML for LBP classification, no studies examined use of AI/ML in prognosis prediction of specific sub-groups, and AI/ML techniques are yet to be implemented in guiding LBP treatment. In contrast, the STarT Back tool has been assessed for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, validity, pain and disability prognosis, and influence on pain and disability treatment outcomes. McKenzie has been assessed for inter- and intra-tester reliability, prognosis, and impact on pain and disability outcomes relative to other treatments. For AI/ML methods to contribute to the refinement of LBP (sub-)classification and guide treatment allocation, large data sets containing known and exploratory clinical features should be examined. There is also a need to establish reliability, validity, and prognostic capacity of AI/ML techniques in LBP as well as its ability to inform treatment allocation for improved patient outcomes and/or reduced healthcare costs.

Using a Motion Sensor to Categorize Nonspecific Low Back Pain Patients: A Machine Learning Approach

Nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) constitutes a critical health challenge that impacts millions of people worldwide with devastating health and socioeconomic consequences. In today’s clinical settings, practitioners continue to follow conventional guidelines to categorize NSLBP patients based on subjective approaches, such as the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST). This study aimed to develop a sensor-based machine learning model to classify NSLBP patients into different subgroups according to quantitative kinematic data, i.e., trunk motion and balance-related measures, in conjunction with STarT output. Specifically, inertial measurement units (IMU) were attached to the trunks of ninety-four patients while they performed repetitive trunk flexion/extension movements on a balance board at self-selected pace. Machine learning algorithms (support vector machine (SVM) and multi-layer perceptron (MLP)) were implemented for model development, and SBST results were used as ground truth. The results demonstrated that kinematic data could successfully be used to categorize patients into two main groups: high vs. low-medium risk. Accuracy levels of ~75% and 60% were achieved for SVM and MLP, respectively. Additionally, among a range of variables detailed herein, time-scaled IMU signals yielded the highest accuracy levels (i.e., ~75%). Our findings support the improvement and use of wearable systems in developing diagnostic and prognostic tools for various healthcare applications. This can facilitate development of an improved, cost-effective quantitative NSLBP assessment tool in clinical and home settings towards effective personalized rehabilitation.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the STarT back screening tool in isiZulu

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is one of the most prevalent conditions in the world. Identifying patients at risk for developing chronic NSLBP is key to effective treatment. The STarT back screening tool is a validated, prognostic screening tool identifying subgroups of NSLBP patients, and the risk factors associated with each subgroup, guiding treatment in the primary care of NSLBP.

OBJECTIVES

To translate the English version of the STarT back screening tool into isiZulu and determine the content validity and reliability of the translated tool.

METHOD

Translation was completed in four phases - forward translation and synthesis, backward translation and expert review. Validation included expert review for content validity and testing of the translated tool on 30 patients, determining test-retest reliability, internal consistency and usability.

RESULTS

Minor linguistic differences were addressed during the translation phase. Item content validity was excellent for relevance (1.00), satisfactory (0.94) for clarity, simplicity and ambiguity, with scale-content validity acceptable (0.955). Spearman's correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was acceptable (0.73). Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency for the total score for test 1 and test 2 was 0.68 and 0.77, and for the psychosocial scale 0.62 and 0.77 respectively. Overall, 33% found the tool very easy to understand and 40% found it very easy to complete.

CONCLUSION

The isiZulu STarT back screening tool showed excellent content validity, acceptable reliability and acceptable internal consistency.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Use of the isiZulu tool in local clinics and private practices can improve clinical decision-making and treatment outcomes for isiZulu-speaking patients with NSLBP.

A Practical Sensor-Based Methodology for the Quantitative Assessment and Classification of Chronic Non Specific Low Back Patients (NSLBP) in Clinical Settings

The successful clinical application of patient-specific personalized medicine for the management of low back patients remains elusive. This study aimed to classify chronic nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) patients using our previously developed and validated wearable inertial sensor (SHARIF-HMIS) for the assessment of trunk kinematic parameters. One hundred NSLBP patients consented to perform repetitive flexural movements in five different planes of motion (PLM): 0° in the sagittal plane, as well as 15° and 30° lateral rotation to the right and left, respectively. They were divided into three subgroups based on the STarT Back Screening Tool. The sensor was placed on the trunk of each patient. An ANOVA mixed model was conducted on the maximum and average angular velocity, linear acceleration and maximum jerk, respectively. The effect of the three-way interaction of Subgroup by direction by PLM on the mean trunk acceleration was significant. Subgrouping by STarT had no main effect on the kinematic indices in the sagittal plane, although significant effects were observed in the asymmetric directions. A significant difference was also identified during pre-rotation in the transverse plane, where the velocity and acceleration decreased while the jerk increased with increasing asymmetry. The acceleration during trunk flexion was significantly higher than that during extension, in contrast to the velocity, which was higher in extension. A Linear Discriminant Analysis, utilized for classification purposes, demonstrated that 51% of the total performance classifying the three STarT subgroups (65% for high risk) occurred at a position of 15° of rotation to the right during extension. Greater discrimination (67%) was obtained in the classification of the high risk vs. low-medium risk. This study provided a smart "sensor-based" practical methodology for quantitatively assessing and classifying NSLBP patients in clinical settings. The outcomes may also be utilized by leveraging cost-effective inertial sensors, already available in today's smartphones, as objective tools for various health applications towards personalized precision medicine.

STarT back tool retained its predicting abilities in patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain after a transcultural adaptation and validation to Hebrew

BACKGROUND

The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBT) distributes low back pain (LBP) patients into three prognostic groups for stratified care. This approach has demonstrated beneficial clinical and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To translate and validate the SBT by investigating its psychometric properties among Israelis with acute and sub-acute LBP, and to evaluate its ability to predict disability after three months.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

METHOD

The SBT was transcultural adapted into Hebrew using published guidelines. A total of 150 patients receiving physical therapy for acute or subacute LBP were administered the SBT. Clinical outcomes included the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), collected by an independent interviewer by phone at the start of the physical therapy treatment and after three months.

RESULTS

The test-retest reliability of the SBT total score and psychosocial subscale were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.89 and 0.82). Spearman's correlation coefficient between SBT total score and RMDQ was 0.82, HADS (Anxiety 0.66, Depression 0.76), FABQ (exercise 0.53), NPRS (severe pain 0.48, average pain 0.53). The SBT baseline score showed excellent predictive abilities in discriminating poor disability after three months (ROC curve = 0.825, P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.756-0.894).

CONCLUSION

The Israeli translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the SBT is a valid and reliable instrument. The SBT discriminated low, medium and high-risk groups, and predicts disability after three months.

Association of STarT Back Tool and the short form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire with multidimensional risk factors

The Short form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ-short) and the STarT Back Tool (SBT) have been developed to screen for risk factors for future low back pain (LBP) -related disability and work loss respectively. The aim of this study was to investigate the accordance of the two questionnaires and to evaluate the accumulation of risk factors in the risk groups of both screening tools in a large population-based sample. The study population consisted of 3079 participants of the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 who had reported LBP over the previous 12 months and had SBT and ÖMPSQ-short data. We evaluated the association of depressive and anxiety symptoms (Hopkins symptom check list-25, Generalized anxiety disorder 7 questionnaire, and Beck’s Depression Inventory 21), psychological features (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire), lifestyle characteristics (BMI, smoking, alcohol abuse, physical inactivity) and social factors (education level) with the SBT and ÖMPSQ-short risk groups. The high-risk groups of both questionnaires were associated (p < 0.001) with depressive and anxiety symptoms and fear-avoidance beliefs. In addition, adverse lifestyle factors accumulated in the higher risk groups, especially from the ÖMPSQ-short. Agreement between the two questionnaires was moderate for men and fair for women.

Can Primary Care for Back and/or Neck Pain in the Netherlands Benefit From Stratification for Risk Groups According to the STarT Back Tool Classification?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether current Dutch primary care clinicians offer tailored treatment to patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain (NP) according to their risk stratification, based on the Keele STarT (Subgroup Targeted Treatment) Back-Screening Tool (SBT).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study with 3-month follow-up.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

General practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists included patients (N=284) with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients completed a baseline questionnaire, including the Dutch SBT, for either LBP or NP. A follow-up measurement was conducted after 3 months to determine recovery (using Global Perceived Effect Scale), pain (using Numeric Pain Rating Scale), and function (using Roland Disability Questionnaire or Neck Disability Index). A questionnaire was sent to the GPs and physiotherapists to evaluate the provided treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of patients' risk profile and clinicians' applied care, and the percentage of patients with persisting disability at follow-up. A distinction was made between patients receiving the recommended treatment and those receiving the nonrecommended treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 12 GPs and 33 physiotherapists included patients. After 3 months, we analyzed 184 patients with LBP and 100 patients with NP. In the LBP group, 52.2% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 38.0% were at medium risk, and 9.8% were at high risk. Overall, 24.5% of the patients with LBP received a low-risk treatment approach, 73.5% a medium-risk, and 2.0% a high-risk treatment approach. The specific agreement between the risk profile and the received treatment for patients with LBP was poor for the low-risk and high-risk patients (21.1% and 10.0%, respectively), and fair for medium-risk patients (51.4%). In the NP group, 58.0% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 37.0% were at medium risk, and 5.0% were at high risk. Only 6.1% of the patients with NP received the low-risk treatment approach. The medium-risk treatment approach was offered the most (90.8%), and the high-risk approach was applied in only 3.1% of the patients. The specific agreement between the risk profile and received treatment for patients with NP was poor for low-risk and medium-risk patients (6.3% and 48.0%, respectively); agreement for high-risk patients could not be calculated.

CONCLUSIONS

Current Dutch primary care for patients with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both does not correspond to the recommended stratified-care approach based on the SBT, as most patients receive medium-risk treatment. Most low-risk patients are overtreated, and most high-risk patients are undertreated. Although the stratified-care approach has not yet been validated in Dutch primary care, these results indicate there may be substantial room for improvement.

Longitudinal Monitoring of Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain During Physical Therapy Treatment Using the STarT Back Screening Tool

Study Design Preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Background The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) was developed to screen and to classify patients with low back pain into subgroups for the risk of having a poor prognosis. However, this classification at baseline does not take into account variables that can influence the prognosis during treatment or over time. Objectives (1) To investigate the changes in risk subgroup measured by the SBST over a period of 6 months, and (2) to assess the long-term predictive ability of the SBST when administered at different time points. Methods Patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain (n = 148) receiving physical therapy care as part of a randomized trial were analyzed. Pain intensity, disability, global perceived effect, and the SBST were collected at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Changes in SBST risk classification were calculated. Hierarchical linear regression models adjusted for potential confounders were built to analyze the predictive capabilities of the SBST when administered at different time points. Results A large proportion of patients (60.8%) changed their risk subgroup after receiving physical therapy care. The SBST improved the prediction for all 6-month outcomes when using the 5-week risk subgroup and the difference between baseline and 5-week subgroup, after controlling for potential confounders. The SBST at baseline did not improve the predictive ability of the models after adjusting for confounders. Conclusion This study shows that many patients change SBST risk subgroup after receiving physical therapy care, and that the predictive ability of the SBST in patients with chronic low back pain increases when administered at different time points. Level of Evidence Prognosis, 2b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(5):314-323. Epub 29 Mar 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7199.

The Japanese version of the STarT Back Tool predicts 6-month clinical outcomes of low back pain

BACKGROUND

The STarT Back Tool classifies patients into low-, medium-, or high-risk groups according to risk for chronic low back pain. The Japanese version of the STarT Back Tool (STarT-J) has been translated and psychometrically validated. The present analysis investigated the predictive ability of the STarT-J.

METHODS

Baseline data were collected through an online survey conducted with Japanese patients with low back pain. Long-term outcomes were assessed in a 6-month follow-up survey. Clinical outcomes at 6 months were evaluated with a pain numerical rating scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and the EuroQol 5 Dimension. Differences in these scores among the three STarT-J risk groups were analyzed. Participants' perceived changes in low back pain and overall health status were examined to determine associations between the chronicity of low back pain at 6 months and STarT-J risk groups.

RESULTS

Data of 1228 volunteers who responded to the baseline and follow-up surveys were included in this analysis. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) scores for the pain numerical rating scale and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire were highest in the high-risk group (5.6 ± 1.9 and 9.6 ± 7.5) and lowest in the low-risk group (3.9 ± 1.6 and 2.1 ± 3.5). Mean ± SD EuroQol 5 Dimension index scores were lowest in the high-risk group (0.66 ± 0.20) and highest in the low-risk group (0.86 ± 0.14). A small percentage of high-risk patients (5.3%) perceived improvement in low back pain at the 6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The STarT-J predicted 6-month pain and disability outcomes. The STarT-J is an easy-to-use tool to screen for patients who are more likely to have chronic low back pain, and may be useful to initiate stratified care in primary care settings.

Psychometric Properties of the Japanese Version of the STarT Back Tool in Patients with Low Back Pain

Background and Objective

The STarT Back Tool uses prognostic indicators to classify patients with low back pain into three risk groups to guide early secondary prevention in primary care. The present study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the tool (STarT-J).

Methods

An online survey was conducted among Japanese patients with low back pain aged 20–64 years. Reliability was assessed by examining the internal consistency of the overall and psychosocial subscales using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Spearman’s correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the concurrent validity between the STarT-J total score/psychosocial subscore and standard reference questionnaires. Discriminant validity was evaluated by calculating the area under the curves (AUCs) for the total and psychosocial subscale scores against standard reference cases. Known-groups validity was assessed by examining the relationship between low back pain-related disability and STarT-J scores.

Results

The analysis included data for 2000 Japanese patients with low back pain; the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 47.7 (9.3) years, and 54.1% were male. The mean (SD) STarT-J score was 2.2 (2.1). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.75 for the overall scale and 0.66 for the psychosocial subscale. Spearman’s correlation coefficients ranged from 0.30 to 0.59, demonstrating moderate to strong concurrent validity. The AUCs for the total score ranged from 0.65 to 0.83, mostly demonstrating acceptable discriminative ability. For known-groups validity, participants with more somatic symptoms had higher total scores. Those in higher STarT-J risk groups had experienced more low back pain-related absences.

Conclusions

The overall STarT-J scale was internally consistent and had acceptable concurrent, discriminant, and known-groups validity. The STarT-J can be used with Japanese patients with low back pain.