Cited by 207Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Subgrouping low back pain: a comparison of the STarT Back Tool with the Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire

Open access
Hill, Jonathan C., Dunn, Kate M., Main, Chris J., Hay, Elaine M.·2010·European Journal of Pain

Abstract

Introduction Clinicians require brief, practical tools to help identify low back pain (LBP) subgroups requiring early, targeted secondary prevention. The STarT Back Tool (SBT) was recently validated to subgroup LBP patients into early treatment pathways. Aim: To test the SBT's concurrent validity against an existing, popular LBP subgrouping tool, the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ), and to compare the clinical characteristics of subgroups identified by each tool. Methods: Two hundred and forty‐four consecutive ‘non‐specific’ LBP consulters at 8 UK GP practices aged 18–59 years were invited to complete a questionnaire. Measures included the ÖMPSQ and SBT, disability, fear, catastrophising, pain intensity, episode duration and demographics. Instruments were compared using Spearman's correlations, tests for subgroup agreement and discriminant analysis of subgroup characteristics according to reference standards. Results: Completed SBT (9‐items) and ÖMPSQ (24‐items) data was available for 130/244 patients (53%). The correlation of SBT and ÖMPSQ scores was ‘excellent (rs = 0.80). Subgroup characteristics were similar across the low, medium and high subgroups, but, the proportions allocated to ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ risk groups were different, with fewer patients in the SBT's high risk group. Both instruments similarly discriminated for reference standards such as disability, catastrophising, fear, comorbid pain and time off work. The ÖMPSQ was better at discriminating pain intensity, while the SBT was better for discriminating bothersomeness of back pain and referred leg pain. Conclusions: The SBT baseline psychometrics performed similarly to the ÖMPSQ, but the SBT is shorter and easier to score and is an appropriate alternative for identifying high risk LBP patients in primary care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.01.003

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hill, J. C., Dunn, K. M., Main, C. J., & Hay, E. M.
Affiliations
Keele University (GB)
Corresponding author
Hill, Jonathan C.
Venue
European Journal of Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
83-89
ISSN
  • 1090-3801 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2149
OpenAlex
W1978916560
Cited by
207
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
9.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (083572)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0707-10131)
  • Keele University
  • Versus Arthritis (13413)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
low back pain, STarT Back Tool, Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, subgrouping, non-specific low back pain, concurrent validity, psychometric properties, secondary prevention, primary care, pain catastrophizing, fear-avoidance beliefs
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Data Collection, Disability Evaluation, Fear, Female, Humans, Leg, Male, Middle Aged, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reference Standards, ROC Curve, Socioeconomic Factors, Low Back Pain, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review