↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and screening ability of the StarT Back screening tool in patients with low back pain in physiotherapy practice, a cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliability and screening ability of the StarT Back screening tool in patients with low back pain in physiotherapy practice, a cohort study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1553-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilde Stendal Robinson, Hanne Dagfinrud

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is the most common reported musculoskeletal disorder, with large prevalence numbers and high costs. Focus on early identification of patients at risk of developing chronic LBP has increased. The Keele Start Back Tool (SBT) is a questionnaire aiming at screening prognostic indicators in LBP patients, categorizing patients into risk-groups and guide treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the Norwegian version of the SBT with regard to reliability of the SBT-scoring and the screening ability in LBP patients in primary care physiotherapy. LBP patients answered a package of questionnaires twice, with 1-3 days in between, containing SBT, Hannover functional ability questionnaire, pain intensity questions and demographics. The relative and absolute reliability of SBT was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the smallest detectable change respectively. Independent sample t-tests were used for group comparisons. Fifty-two patients with LBP. Mean age (SD) was 45 (12) years and 62% were female. The ICC (95% CI) for SBT total score and psychosocial subscore was 0.89 (0.82, 0.94) and 0.82 (0.70, 0.90) respectively. None of the participants were allocated to the high risk group. The medium risk group reported significantly more pain last week and more activity limitations than the low risk group at both test and retest (0.001 ≤ p ≤ 0.003), whereas no significant difference between the groups was found on pain now (0.05 ≤ p ≤ 0.16). The Norwegian version of the SBT was reliable and the screening ability was good as the subgrouping of patients into risk-groups reflected the severity of their back problems. The SBT may be an applicable and useful tool in physiotherapy practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 148 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 25%
Student > Bachelor 24 16%
Other 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 31 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 49 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 37 25%
Sports and Recreations 11 7%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 37 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2017.
All research outputs
#8,128,199
of 14,432,587 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,428
of 2,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,052
of 269,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,432,587 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them