Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Investigation of validity for the STarT Back Screening Tool: – A Systematic Review
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Health Sciences, Health and Rehab.
2017 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (One Year)), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Background: Non-specific low back pain is a growing problem in society. No treatment have shown satisfying results to reduce pain or disability for patients with non-specific low back pain, and 1-18% of these patients develop chronic low back pain. STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) is an instrument for sub grouping patients with non-specific low back pain into low, medium or high risk of developing chronic low back pain and then modifying the treatment after the different needs of every patient. The purpose of this study was to do a systematic review, investigating validation of the SBST to evaluate the justification of its use by clinicians. Method: Pubmed, Cinahl and Medline was searched in February 2017 for studies investigating criterion validity, construct validity and content validity of the SBST. The author (JG) assessed risk of bias and extracted relevant data following the procedures of PRISMA-statement. Result: 15 articles were identified for inclusion in the review. 8 articles investigated criterion validity, 11 articles investigated construct validity and 1 article investigated content validity. Predictive validity showed heterogeneous statistical analysis and varying results, a narrative result was presented that showed marginal benefits for the use of SBST for prediction of future outcome. Concurrent validity was measured with Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient in all investigated articles, showing results between 0.34-0.802. Discriminant validity was measured with Area under the curve analysis in all articles, scoring between 0.69-0.92. Convergent validity showed a Pearson’s correlation between 0.708-0.811 and a Spearman’s rank correlation between 0.35-0.74. Conclusion: Because of heterogeneity of the results it is not possible to draw conclusive conclusions. However, results tend to show limited evidence for the use of SBST as a predictive instrument for patients with non-specific low back pain.  

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. , p. 30
Keywords [en]
STarT Back Screening Tool; validity; low back pain
National Category
Physiotherapy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-64164OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-64164DiVA, id: diva2:1111471
Subject / course
Student thesis, at least 15 credits
Educational program
Physiotherapy, master's level (60 credits)
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2017-06-19 Created: 2017-06-19 Last updated: 2017-06-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1401 kB)144 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 1401 kBChecksum SHA-512
59c6c071cbaf08934389ef61a3d9ac9237b4a5ad40a66f4a75d1a82f5f4b6c959f62557f4cb9c4890be3d17fe52f6ee16f7260bc4e5a57b8dafd6419d4aff3ec
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Health and Rehab
Physiotherapy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 144 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 204 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf