Adding information on multisite and widespread pain to the STarT back screening tool when identifying low back pain patients at risk of worse prognosis.

IF 1.5 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2025-06-19 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1515/sjpain-2024-0077
Katarina Aili, Stefan Bergman, Emma Haglund
{"title":"Adding information on multisite and widespread pain to the STarT back screening tool when identifying low back pain patients at risk of worse prognosis.","authors":"Katarina Aili, Stefan Bergman, Emma Haglund","doi":"10.1515/sjpain-2024-0077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The STarT Back screening Tool (SBT) captures patients with low back pain (LBP) at risk of worse prognosis. However, the SBT does not include assessment of multisite and chronic widespread pain (MS-CWP). The aim was to study the differences in prognostic factors in patients with LBP classified according to SBT or SBT in combination with MS-CWP, and the 1-year outcome regarding visits to physiotherapist and sickness absence, in relation to risk scorings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this 1-year prospective study, adults (18-67 years) seeking care for LBP in primary care were classified into three prognostic risk groups (low, medium, high), using SBT only and using a combined screening tool (SBT and MS-CWP). Differences in prognostic factors at baseline, and outcome in terms of number of physiotherapist visits and sickness absence the year after inclusion were compared for risk groups derived by the two methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-four patients (61% women) were included in the study. According to SBT alone, 19 were classified as low risk, 48 as medium risk, and 17 as high risk. When using the combined screening tool, additionally seven patients from the medium risk group were classified as high risk. Patients classified as high risk by SBT only or by the combined screening tool showed similar statistically significant worse mental health, health status, kinesiophobia, physical function, and sleep, as compared to the low-risk group. There were no differences in visits to physiotherapist and sickness absence between the risk groups for neither of the tools.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The combined screening tool resulted in more patients being classified as high risk than with SBT alone. The three risk groups identified either by SBT alone or by the combined screening tool differed significantly on all investigated prognostic factors, suggesting that including MS-CWP to the SBT captures more patients at risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":47407,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2024-0077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The STarT Back screening Tool (SBT) captures patients with low back pain (LBP) at risk of worse prognosis. However, the SBT does not include assessment of multisite and chronic widespread pain (MS-CWP). The aim was to study the differences in prognostic factors in patients with LBP classified according to SBT or SBT in combination with MS-CWP, and the 1-year outcome regarding visits to physiotherapist and sickness absence, in relation to risk scorings.

Methods: In this 1-year prospective study, adults (18-67 years) seeking care for LBP in primary care were classified into three prognostic risk groups (low, medium, high), using SBT only and using a combined screening tool (SBT and MS-CWP). Differences in prognostic factors at baseline, and outcome in terms of number of physiotherapist visits and sickness absence the year after inclusion were compared for risk groups derived by the two methods.

Results: Eighty-four patients (61% women) were included in the study. According to SBT alone, 19 were classified as low risk, 48 as medium risk, and 17 as high risk. When using the combined screening tool, additionally seven patients from the medium risk group were classified as high risk. Patients classified as high risk by SBT only or by the combined screening tool showed similar statistically significant worse mental health, health status, kinesiophobia, physical function, and sleep, as compared to the low-risk group. There were no differences in visits to physiotherapist and sickness absence between the risk groups for neither of the tools.

Conclusion: The combined screening tool resulted in more patients being classified as high risk than with SBT alone. The three risk groups identified either by SBT alone or by the combined screening tool differed significantly on all investigated prognostic factors, suggesting that including MS-CWP to the SBT captures more patients at risk.

在STarT背部筛查工具中增加多部位和广泛性疼痛的信息,以确定预后较差的腰痛患者。
目的:STarT背部筛查工具(SBT)捕获有预后不良风险的腰痛(LBP)患者。然而,SBT不包括多部位和慢性广泛性疼痛(MS-CWP)的评估。目的是研究根据SBT或SBT联合MS-CWP分类的LBP患者预后因素的差异,以及1年的结果,包括访问物理治疗师和病假,与风险评分的关系。方法:在这项为期1年的前瞻性研究中,在初级保健中寻求腰痛治疗的成年人(18-67岁)被分为三个预后风险组(低、中、高),分别使用SBT和联合筛查工具(SBT和MS-CWP)。比较两种方法得出的风险组在基线时预后因素的差异,以及纳入后一年物理治疗师就诊次数和疾病缺勤情况的结果。结果:84例患者(61%为女性)纳入研究。仅根据SBT, 19例为低风险,48例为中风险,17例为高风险。当使用联合筛查工具时,另外7例中危组患者被归为高危。与低风险组相比,仅通过SBT分类为高风险的患者或通过联合筛查工具分类为高风险的患者在心理健康、健康状况、运动恐惧症、身体功能和睡眠方面表现出相似的统计学显著性差。在使用这两种工具的风险组之间,物理治疗师的就诊和疾病缺勤没有差异。结论:联合筛查工具比单独使用SBT可使更多的患者被归为高危人群。通过单独SBT或联合筛查工具确定的三个风险组在所有被调查的预后因素上存在显著差异,这表明将MS-CWP纳入SBT可捕获更多处于危险中的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Scandinavian Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
73
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信