Cited by 18Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Comparison of the accuracy of whippredict to that of a modified version of the short-form orebro musculoskeletal pain screening questionnaire to predict poor recovery after whiplash injury

Sterling, Michele, Ritchie, Carrie, Rebbeck, Trudy, Cameron, Ian D., Griffin, Alex, Jagnoor, Jagnoor, Nicholas, Michael, Nguyen, Ha +1 more·2021·Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

Abstract

Objective To compare the accuracy of a whiplash-specific risk screening tool (WhipPredict) with that of the modified generic short-form Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (SF-ÖMPSQ) for predicting poor recovery in patients following whiplash injury. Study Design Inception cohort study. Methods Two hundred two participants with acute whiplash completed the WhipPredict and modified SF-ÖMPSQ at baseline. Poor recovery was measured at 6 and 12 months using the Neck Disability Index (greater than 10%), numeric pain-rating scale (greater than 3/10), global perceived recovery (less than +4), and inability to return to preinjury work level. Accuracy statistics were calculated to predict poor recovery. Results Seventy-one percent (n = 143) of participants completed the 6-month assessment and 56% (n = 113) completed the 12-month assessment. At baseline, agreement between the WhipPredict and modified SF-ÖMPSQ was fair (prevalence-adjusted and bias-adjusted κ = 0.26; 95% confidence interval: 0.12, 0.39). Depending on the outcome, 20% to 72% of people had not recovered at 6 months and 12% to 71% had not recovered at 12 months. At 6 and 12 months, the WhipPredict tool showed high sensitivity (88%–96%) and low specificity (all outcomes less than 31%) on all 4 separate outcomes. The modified SF-ÖMPSQ showed moderate sensitivity (67%–75%) for the Neck Disability Index, numeric pain-rating scale, and global perceived recovery, high sensitivity for return to work (81%–90%), and moderate specificity (54%–77%) for all 4 outcomes. Conclusion Both tools showed acceptable accuracy in predicting poor recovery. The WhipPredict tool is recommended to correctly identify patients who will not recover but may falsely classify those who recover well. Using the modified SF-ÖMPSQ will result in fewer patients falsely categorized as being at risk of poor recovery and may result in some people being undertreated. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(5):207–215. Epub 19 Feb 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.9987

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2519/jospt.2021.9987

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Severe or persistent distress in the weeks and months following injury is associated with poorer recovery (e.g., higher levels of disability, delayed return to work).

    “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”
  • Severe or persistent distress in the weeks and months following injury is associated with increased risk of developing chronic pain.

    “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”
  • The utility of screening tools or clinical measurements to predict those likely to do poorly following an injury or trauma has been discussed in the literature for some time.

    “The utility of screening tools or clinical measurements to predict those likely to do poorly following an injury or trauma has been discussed in the literature for some time.4710 11”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 18

Authors
Sterling, M., Ritchie, C., Rebbeck, T., Cameron, I. D., Griffin, A., Jagnoor, J., Nicholas, M., Nguyen, H., & Warren, J.
Venue
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
Published
2021-05
Volume
51
Issue
5
Pages
207-215
ISSN
  • 0190-6011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-1344
OpenAlex
W3130337464
Cited by
18
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Automotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
whiplash injury, Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire, risk screening tool, neck pain, Neck Disability Index, return to work, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, undertreatment, pain intensity, neck disability
MeSH terms
Adult, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Whiplash Injuries, Cohort Studies, Recovery of Function

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