IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0158850.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predicting Persistent Back Symptoms by Psychosocial Risk Factors: Validity Criteria for the ÖMPSQ and the HKF-R 10 in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • E Riewe
  • E Neubauer
  • A C Pfeifer
  • M Schiltenwolf

Abstract

Objective: 10% of all individuals in Germany develop persistent symptoms due to nonspecific back pain (NSBP) causing up to 90% of direct and indirect expenses for health care systems. Evidence indicates a strong relationship between chronic nonspecific back pain and psychosocial risk factors. The Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) and the German Heidelberger Kurzfragebogen Rückenschmerz (HKF-R 10) are deemed valid in prediction of persistent pain, functional loss or amount of sick leave. This study provides and discusses validity criteria for these questionnaires using ROC-curve analyses. Quality measurements included sensitivity and specificity, likelihood-ratio related test-efficiencies and clinical utility in regard to predictive values. Methods: 265 patients recruited from primary and secondary care units completed both questionnaires during the same timeframe. From the total, 133 patients returned a 6-month follow-up questionnaire to assess the validity criteria for outcomes of pain, function and sick leave. Results: Based on heterogeneous cut-offs for the ÖMPSQ, sensitivity and specificity were moderate for outcome of pain (72%/75%). Very high sensitivity was observed for function (97%/57%) and high specificity for sick leave (63%/85%). The latter also applied to the HKF-R 10 (pain 50%/84%). Proportions between sensitivity and specificity were unbalanced except for the ÖMPSQ outcome of pain. Likelihood-ratios and positive predictive values ranged from low to moderate. Conclusion: Although the ÖMPSQ may be considered useful in identification of long-term functional loss or pain, over- and underestimation of patients at risk of chronic noncspecific back pain led to limited test-efficiencies and clinical utility for both questionnaires. Further studies are required to quantify the predictive validity of both questionnaires in Germany.

Suggested Citation

  • E Riewe & E Neubauer & A C Pfeifer & M Schiltenwolf, 2016. "Predicting Persistent Back Symptoms by Psychosocial Risk Factors: Validity Criteria for the ÖMPSQ and the HKF-R 10 in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-14, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158850
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158850
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158850
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158850&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0158850?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158850. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.