Improving the Predictive Validity of the Dutch STarT Back Tool.

Bier, JD; Kuijer, MR; de Jong, A; Verhagen, A

Improving the Predictive Validity of the Dutch STarT Back Tool.

Bier, JD Kuijer, MR de Jong, A Verhagen, A

Permalink

Publisher:: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Phys Ther, 2021, 101, (11)
Issue Date:: 2021-11-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

The embargo period expires on 30 Nov 2022

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted versionAdobe PDF (1.26 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Bier, JD
dc.contributor.author	Kuijer, MR
dc.contributor.author	de Jong, A
dc.contributor.author	Verhagen, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6195-0128
dc.date.accessioned	2022-03-17T08:07:34Z
dc.date.available	2021-08-17
dc.date.available	2022-03-17T08:07:34Z
dc.date.issued	2021-11-01
dc.identifier.citation	Phys Ther, 2021, 101, (11)
dc.identifier.issn	0031-9023
dc.identifier.issn	1538-6724
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/155297
dc.description.abstract	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.
dc.format	Print
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Oxford University Press (OUP)
dc.relation.ispartof	Phys Ther
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1093/ptj/pzab211
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess
dc.subject	1103 Clinical Sciences, 1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Rehabilitation
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Cohort Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Disability Evaluation
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Low Back Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Pain Measurement
dc.subject.mesh	Physical Therapy Modalities
dc.subject.mesh	Predictive Value of Tests
dc.subject.mesh	Prospective Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Low Back Pain
dc.subject.mesh	Pain Measurement
dc.subject.mesh	Disability Evaluation
dc.subject.mesh	Cohort Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Prospective Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Predictive Value of Tests
dc.subject.mesh	Adult
dc.subject.mesh	Physical Therapy Modalities
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires
dc.title	Improving the Predictive Validity of the Dutch STarT Back Tool.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	101
utslib.location.activity	United States
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences
utslib.for	1106 Human Movement and Sports Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health/GSH.Physiotherapy
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
utslib.copyright.embargo	2022-11-30T00:00:00+1000Z
dc.date.updated	2022-03-17T08:07:33Z
pubs.issue	11
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	101
utslib.citation.issue	11

Abstract:

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.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/155297