Cited by 79Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Results From the Validation Cohort

Open access
George, Steven Z., Beneciuk, Jason M., Lentz, Trevor A., Wu, Samuel S., Dai, Yunfeng, Bialosky, Joel E., Zeppieri, Giorgio·2018·Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

Abstract

Study Design: Observational, prospective cohort. Background: Musculoskeletal pain is a common reason to seek health care, and earlier nonpharmacological treatment and enhancement of personalized care options are 2 high-priority areas. Validating concise assessment tools is an important step toward establishing better care pathways. Objectives: To determine the predictive validity of Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) tools for individuals with neck, low back, shoulder, or knee pain. Methods: A convenience sample (n = 440) was gathered by Orthopaedic Physical Therapy-Investigator Network clinics (n = 9). Participants completed demographic, clinical, and comorbidity questionnaires and the OSPRO tools, and were followed for 12-month outcomes in pain intensity, region-specific disability, quality of life, and comorbidity change. Analyses predicted these 12-month outcomes with models that included the OSPRO review-of-systems (OSPRO-ROS) and yellow flag (OSPRO-YF) tools and planned covariates (accounting for comorbidities and established demographic and clinical factors). Results: The 10-item OSPRO-YF tool (baseline and 4-week change score) consistently added to predictive models for 12-month pain intensity, region-specific disability, and quality of life. The 10-item OSPRO-ROS tool added to a predictive model for quality of life (mental summary score), and 13 additional items of the OSPRO-ROS+ tool added to prediction of 12-month comorbidity change. Other consistent predictors included age, race, income, previous episode of pain in same region, comorbidity number, and baseline measure for the outcome of interest. Conclusion: The OSPRO-ROS and OSPRO-YF tools statistically improved prediction of multiple 12-month outcomes. The additional variance explained was small, and future research is necessary to determine whether these tools can be used as measurement adjuncts to improve management of musculoskeletal pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(6):460–475. Epub 7 Apr 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7811

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 · 10.2519/jospt.2018.7811

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • When used in more widespread patient populations, the predictive ability of multidimensional yellow flag instruments is low.

    “When used in more widespread patient populations, the predictive ability of multidimensional yellow flag instruments is low (S.Z. George et al., 2018).”

    From Beyond yellow flags: The Big‐Five personality traits and psychologically informed musculoskeletal rehabilitation. (2023) · cites this paper as S.Z. George et al., 2018

    The Discussion reports that OSPRO-YF added only small amounts of variance to outcome predictions in a cohort spanning neck, shoulder, low-back, and knee pain, and says its predictive ability was similar to that of other screening tools. This supports the claim’s general direction, but the paper measures small incremental predictive contributions from OSPRO-YF; it does not establish that multidimensional yellow-flag instruments generally have low predictive ability across broader patient populations. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
George, S. Z., Beneciuk, J. M., Lentz, T. A., Wu, S. S., Dai, Y., Bialosky, J. E., & Zeppieri, G.
Venue
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
Published
2018-06
Volume
48
Issue
6
Pages
460-475
ISSN
  • 0190-6011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-1344
OpenAlex
W2795524226
Cited by
79
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3
FWCI
5.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001427)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K12HD055929)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
musculoskeletal pain, neck pain, low back pain, shoulder pain, knee pain, yellow flags, review of systems, predictive validity, outcome prediction, comorbidities, disability, quality of life, pain intensity, referral decisions, orthopaedic physical therapy
MeSH terms
Aged, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Referral and Consultation, Treatment Outcome, 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