Validity and Reproducibility of the STarT Back Tool (Dutch Version) in Patients With Low Back Pain in Primary Care Settings

Abstract

The SBT has been successfully translated into Dutch. The psychometric analysis showed acceptable results and, therefore, the SBT is a valid screening tool for patients with LBP in Dutch primary care.

Predictive Validity of the STarT Back Tool for Risk of Persistent Disabling Back Pain in a U.S. Primary Care Setting

“…Overall, the proportions and RRs for the STarT Back risk groups in MATCH were comparable to those reported in the original STarT Back validation study by Hill et al at 6-month follow-up (Table 2/Figure 2). The proportions and RRs of those with persistent disabling back pain at 6-month follow-up according to STarT Back risk group in MATCH were also generally similar to those reported in Danish (Morso et al 7 ) and Dutch (Bier et al 20 ) primary care at 3-month follow-up, when accounting for the width of confidence intervals (Table 2/Figure 2). …”

“…We descriptively compared these estimates with those from 3 prior studies that reported on the predictive validity of the STarT Back risk groups using the same definition of persistent disabling back pain at follow-up (RMDQ ≥7), including the original STarT Back validation study. 4, 7, 20 Next, we examined discrimination by calculating the performance characteristics of the STarT Back categories, applying the same contrasts used in the original STarT Back validation study: contrasting high-risk with low/medium-risk, and contrasting low-risk with medium/high-risk. Last, we examined the external predictive validity of the 3 STarT Back risk groups within 3 subgroups: 1) older adults (age ≥ 65 years), 2) those with acute back pain (<4 weeks duration), and 3) those with self-reported recent major improvement reflecting recovery or near-recovery (those reporting being ‘completely recovered’ or ‘much better’ compared to their index back pain visit, about 2 weeks earlier).…”

Artificial intelligence to improve back pain outcomes and lessons learnt from clinical classification approaches: three systematic reviews

“…Only one study achieved an internal consistency above 0.9 (strong), which is recommended for use in individuals 101 . Nine studies also assessed the test−retest reliability of the STarT Back with the intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa values ranging from 0.65 to 0.93 (moderate to excellent) 74,75,82,87,98,99,101,103,109 . Construct validity was assessed in ten studies with correlation values ranging from 0.18 to 0.75 (weak to strong); however, most comparisons were of moderate strength 68,71,74,75,79,82,87,98,103,109 .…”

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified blended physiotherapy in patients with non-specific low back pain: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial

“…Face-to-face care During the first face-to-face session, the physiotherapist will tailor the e-Exercise LBP intervention to the patients' identified risk for developing persistent LBP (i.e. low, medium or high), using the Keele STarT Back Screening Tool [29,39,40] (Fig. 1, Table 1).…”