The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development of a short form of the orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A longitudinal design where the questionnaire was completed at a pretest and predictive ability evaluated with a 1-year follow-up. A second sample was employed to provide a replication. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to validate a short form of the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMSPQ). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies demonstrate the research and clinical utility of the ÖMSPQ. Calls have been made for a shorter form that requires less time in administering. METHODS: The short version was constructed by taking two items from each of the five factors shown to have predictive power. It was then tested against the long form in two samples of people with musculoskeletal pain where one reflects an occupational health care population (N = 324) and the other a primary care population (N = 183) thus providing a built-in replication. All participants completed the ÖMSPQ and were then followed over the course of a year to evaluate disability as measured by sick leave. RESULTS: The correlation between the short and long forms was 0.91. The receiver operating characteristic curve was nearly identical for the long and short versions of the questionnaire (e.g., primary care sample: 0.84 vs. 0.81; occupational sample: 0.72 vs. 0.70). Of those who developed disability, a cutoff of 50 on the short version identified 85% in the occupational and 83% in the primary care samples which was nearly as good as the full version. CONCLUSION: The short form of the ÖMSPQ is appropriate for clinical and research purposes, since it is nearly as accurate as the longer version.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“While it is common for people to experience a certain level of distress in the days immediately following injury (eg, anxiety and concerns about pain), severe distress or persistent distress in the weeks and months following injury is associated with poorer recovery (eg, higher levels of disability, delayed return to work) and increased risk of developing chronic pain.511”
From Impact of healthcare interventions on distress following acute musculoskeletal/orthopaedic injury: A scoping review of systematic reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“Screening tools have been developed to identify those at risk of developing chronic pain following musculoskeletal (MSK) injury.5 7 10 11”
From Impact of healthcare interventions on distress following acute musculoskeletal/orthopaedic injury: A scoping review of systematic reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“While it is common for people to experience a certain level of distress in the days immediately following injury (eg, anxiety and concerns about pain), severe distress or persistent distress in the weeks and months following injury is associated with poorer recovery (eg, higher levels of disability, delayed return to work) and increased risk of developing chronic pain.511”
From Impact of healthcare interventions on distress following acute musculoskeletal/orthopaedic injury: A scoping review of systematic reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [5]
Citations
Cites
Survey of chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment
Breivik, H., Collett, B., Ventafridda, V., Cohen, R., & Gallacher, D. (2006) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.06.009 · Cited by 5,486
Chronic pain in Australia: a prevalence study.
Blyth, F. M., March, L. M., Brnabic, A. J. M., Jorm, L. R., Williamson, M., & Cousins, M. J. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00355-9 · Cited by 1,096
A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment
Hill, J. C., Dunn, K. M., Lewis, M., Mullis, R., Main, C. J., Foster, N. E., & Hay, E. M. (2008) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/art.23563 · Cited by 1,052
Nicholas, M. K., Linton, S. J., Watson, P. J., & Main, C. J. (2011) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20100224 · Cited by 690
Henschke, N., Maher, C. G., Refshauge, K. M., Herbert, R., Cumming, R. G., Bleasel, J. F., York, J., Das, A., & McAuley, J. H. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a171 · Cited by 555
Linton, S. J., & Boersma, K. (2003) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/00002508-200303000-00002 · Cited by 523
One-and Two-Item Measures of Pain Beliefs and Coping Strategies
Jensen, M. P., Keefe, F. J., Lefebvre, J. C., Romano, J. M., & Turner, J. A. (2003) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00076-9 · Cited by 301
Can Chronic Disability Be Prevented?
Linton, S. J., & Andersson, T. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200011010-00017 · Cited by 299
Integrating Psychosocial and Behavioral Interventions to Achieve Optimal Rehabilitation Outcomes
Sullivan, M. J. L., Feuerstein, M., Gatchel, R. J., Linton, S. J., & Pransky, G. (2005) · Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation · doi:10.1007/s10926-005-8029-9 · Cited by 233
Hill, J. C., Dunn, K. M., Main, C. J., & Hay, E. M. (2010) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2009.01.003 · Cited by 207
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Shaw, 2006, ehabil, 16, 591
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Maher, C., Underwood, M., & Buchbinder, R. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30970-9 · Cited by 2,535
Lin, I. B., Wiles, L., Waller, R., Goucke, R. C., Nagree, Y., Gibberd, M., Straker, L. M., Maher, C. G., & O’Sullivan, P. (2019) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099878 · Cited by 1,091
Nicholas, M. K., Linton, S. J., Watson, P. J., & Main, C. J. (2011) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20100224 · Cited by 690
Synnott, A., O’Keeffe, M., Bunzli, S., Dankaerts, W., O'Sullivan, P., & O'Sullivan, K. (2015) · Journal of Physiotherapy · doi:10.1016/j.jphys.2015.02.016 · Cited by 412
Diagnostic triage for low back pain: a practical approach for primary care
Bardin, L., King, P., & Maher, C. G. (2017) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja16.00828 · Cited by 330
Metadata
- Authors
- Linton, S. J., Nicholas, M., & MacDonald, S.
- Affiliations
- Örebro University (SE)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Linton, Steven J.
- MacDonald, Shane
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 2011-10
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 1891-1895
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2163072018
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Spine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Keywords
- Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, short-form questionnaire, musculoskeletal pain, screening questionnaire validation, sick leave, disability prediction, occupational health services, primary care, questionnaire length reduction
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Health Services, Pain Measurement, Predictive Value of Tests, Primary Health Care, Prognosis, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Severity of Illness Index, Sweden, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Sick Leave, Young Adult, Musculoskeletal Pain
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
