Abstract
Objectives Back pain is a massive public health problem. The STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) was developed for use in primary care to triage people with lumbar pain, classifying them as low, medium or high “risk” of prolonged symptoms. This classification guides non-surgical interventions including manual treatments, exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy. Claims suggest SBST brings generic health and cost benefits. National guidance recommends STarT Back is used at the first primary care consultation but can be used at any stage. For SBST to be an effective triage tool it should distinguish structural from non-structural pain. We tested this requirement in consecutive people referred to a single triage practitioner, hypothesising it was not possible conceptually.
Design An observational study of the relationship between routine, prospectively collected triage data and diagnosis.
Setting A secondary care spinal triage service based in a teaching hospital.
Participants We studied consecutive referrals with lumbar pain triaged by a single extended scope practitioner (ESP) over 22 months (Nov 2015-Sept 2017).
Main Outcome Measures SBST and pain visual analogue scores (VAS: 0-10) were collected at the initial consultation. We compared data for people with and without surgically remedial lesions.
Results 1041 people were seen (61% female, mean age 53), n=234 (28%) had surgically amenable explanations for pain. People with surgical lesions were older (58 v 51yrs), more likely male (48 v 35%) and had higher VAS scores (6.8 v 6.1). Surgery and non-surgery subgroups had similar SBST total and domain score distribution profiles. The surgery subgroup had less low risk (9%v21%) and more high risk (37% v 30%) classified people.
Conclusion SBST scores did not differentiate surgical from non-surgical pathologies. It seems unlikely that symptom questionnaires can estimate prognosis accurately unless everyone has the same diagnosis, not just the same symptom. Diagnosis, rather than questionnaire scores, should guide treatment and inform prognosis.
Summary Box
What is already known on this topic?
What is already known on this topic?The symptom of low back pain is a common cause of disability worldwide.
The majority if people with low back pain probably do not have a structural problem in their lumbar spine to explain the extent of their disability.
National guidelines throughout the world attempt to facilitate the identification and treatment of people with, “non-specific low back pain”, and prescribe treatment for people given this label.
What this study adds?
What this study adds?It seems unlikely that symptom questionnaires can estimate prognosis accurately unless everyone has the same diagnosis, not just the same symptom.
The practice of recommending treatment and prognosticating in the absence of a diagnosis needs further scrutiny.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
This was a retrospective observational study
Funding Statement
No funding was received.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Not Applicable
Any clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Footnotes
Tim Germon, Consultant Spinal Neurosurgeon, Alex Jack, Extended Scope Practitioner, Institute of Translational & Stratified Medicine (Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry), University of Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK, Jeremy Hobart, Professor of Clinical Neurology & Health Measurement.
The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide licence to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to i) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Contribution, ii) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, iii) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, iv) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, v) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located; and, vi) licence any third party to do any or all of the above.
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Mr Germon, the guarantor, affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
No funding was received.
The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.
The data presented is routinely collected and non-identifiable and there is no issue with ethical approval or consent.
Data Availability
The data is routinely collected clinical data which in principle we are happy to share. We have no consent to share but are investigating if sharing anonymised data is ethical.
