Search

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the predictive validity of the Dutch version of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) can be improved by (1) using other cut-off values, (2) changing the items, or (3) adding prognostic factors to the SBT. DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study (PRINS study: Prevalence of Risk groups in Neck- and back pain patients according to the STarT back screening tool) in patients with low back or neck pain. METHODS: The predictive validity was calculated with a relative risk ratio and a Spearman correlation. The new cut-off values were calculated with receiver operating characteristic curves. Replacing items of the SBT and adding new items were assessed with logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were included; 51% were categorized as having low risk, 39% as moderate risk, and 11% as high risk. Changing the cut-off total score to ≤2 and the subscore to ≥5 led to an improvement of the Spearman correlation and RR. Adding the item "duration of the complaints" improved the RR for moderate risk (3.6) (95% CI = 1.6-7.9) and for high risk (9.0) (95% CI = 4.2-19.1) compared with low risk. The new Spearman correlation was improved to rs = 0.37. CONCLUSION: The predictive validity was improved by adding the item "duration of the complaints" and changing the cut-off values.

Objective To evaluate whether current Dutch primary care clinicians offer tailored treatment to patients with low back pain (LBP) or neck pain (NP) according to their risk stratification, based on the Keele STarT (Subgroup Targeted Treatment) Back-Screening Tool (SBT). Design Prospective cohort study with 3-month follow-up. Setting Primary care. Participants General practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists included patients (N=284) with nonspecific LBP, NP, or both. Interventions Patients completed a baseline questionnaire, including the Dutch SBT, for either LBP or NP. A follow-up measurement was conducted after 3 months to determine recovery (using Global Perceived Effect Scale), pain (using Numeric Pain Rating Scale), and function (using Roland Disability Questionnaire or Neck Disability Index). A questionnaire was sent to the GPs and physiotherapists to evaluate the provided treatment. Main Outcome Measures Prevalence of patients’ risk profile and clinicians’ applied care, and the percentage of patients with persisting disability at follow-up. A distinction was made between patients receiving the recommended treatment and those receiving the nonrecommended treatment. Results In total, 12 GPs and 33 physiotherapists included patients. After 3 months, we analyzed 184 patients with LBP and 100 patients with NP. In the LBP group, 52.2% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 38.0% were at medium risk, and 9.8% were at high risk. Overall, 24.5% of the patients with LBP received a low-risk treatment approach, 73.5% a medium-risk, and 2.0% a high-risk treatment approach. The specific agreement between the risk profile and the received treatment for patients with LBP was poor for the low-risk and high-risk patients (21.1% and 10.0%, respectively), and fair for medium-risk patients (51.4%). In the NP group, 58.0% of the patients were at low risk for persisting disability, 37.0% were at medium risk, and 5.0% were at high risk. Only 6.1% of the patie

Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the STarT Back screening Tool (SBT), for patients with neck pain. Methods We modified the SBT to fit patients with neck pain. General practitioners and physiotherapists included patients who completed both a baseline and a follow-up questionnaire at 3 days and 3 months, respectively. The construct validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation between the SBT and the reference questionnaires. The reproducibility was assessed in the first week using the quadratic weighted kappa and the specific agreement. Predictive validity was assessed using a relative-risk ratio (RR) for, amongst others, persisting disability at 3 months. Content validity was analysed using both floor and ceiling effects. Results In total, 100 patients were included; 58% were categorised as being at “low risk” for persisting disability, 37% at “medium risk” and 5% at “high risk”. As expected for the construct validity, we found a moderate to high correlation for all questions except for activity question 3. The reproducibility had a quadratic-weighted kappa of 0.58, and a specific agreement of 90.9% for “low-risk” and 66.7% for “medium-risk” patients. The RRs for persisting disability for “medium-risk” against “low-risk” patients were 1.5 (95% C.I. 0.9–2.4) and 1.5 (95% C.I. 0.5–4.1) for pain. The sample size for high-risk patients was low. Conclusion The original SBT is modified to fit patients with neck pain in Dutch primary care. The psychometric analysis indicates sufficiently reliable outcomes, although the predictive validity showed statistically insignificant results.