Can the French version of the short Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire or its subsets predict the evolution of patients with acute, (sub) acute and chronic pain?
Low back pain
Psychosocial
Screening
Secondary prevention
Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2022
01 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
18
05
2021
accepted:
24
11
2021
entrez:
2
4
2022
pubmed:
3
4
2022
medline:
6
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Prevention of chronic pain relies on accurate detection of at-risk patients. Screening tools have been validated mainly in (sub) acute spinal pain and the need of more generic tools is high. We assessed the validity of the French version of the short Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) in patients with a large range of pain duration and localization. First, we re-analyzed data from a 6-month longitudinal study of 73 patients with (sub) acute spinal pain consulting in secondary line settings. Secondly, we performed a new 12-month longitudinal study of 542 primary care patients with (sub) acute and chronic pain in different localizations (spinal, limbs, "non-musculoskeletal"). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and cutoff scores were computed and compared for different subpopulations and ÖMPSQ subscores. Data from patients suffering from (sub) acute and chronic spinal pain consulting in both primary and secondary care settings confirmed the validity of the short French ÖMPSQ version and its subsets. In the primary care cohort, the performance of the questionnaire and its psychosocial subscore was variable but at least "fair" in most populations ((sub) acute and chronic, spinal and limb pain). Cutoff scores showed quite large variability depending on the outcome and the subpopulation considered. These results confirm the usefulness of the short French ÖMPSQ for prediction of the evolution of (sub) acute and chronic patients with spinal and limb pain, whatever its duration. However, increasing population heterogeneity results in slightly worse predictive performance and largely variable cutoff scores. Consequently, it might be difficult to choose universal cutoff scores and other criteria, such as patients' values and the available resources for patient management, should be taken into account.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prevention of chronic pain relies on accurate detection of at-risk patients. Screening tools have been validated mainly in (sub) acute spinal pain and the need of more generic tools is high. We assessed the validity of the French version of the short Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) in patients with a large range of pain duration and localization.
METHODS
METHODS
First, we re-analyzed data from a 6-month longitudinal study of 73 patients with (sub) acute spinal pain consulting in secondary line settings. Secondly, we performed a new 12-month longitudinal study of 542 primary care patients with (sub) acute and chronic pain in different localizations (spinal, limbs, "non-musculoskeletal"). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and cutoff scores were computed and compared for different subpopulations and ÖMPSQ subscores.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Data from patients suffering from (sub) acute and chronic spinal pain consulting in both primary and secondary care settings confirmed the validity of the short French ÖMPSQ version and its subsets. In the primary care cohort, the performance of the questionnaire and its psychosocial subscore was variable but at least "fair" in most populations ((sub) acute and chronic, spinal and limb pain). Cutoff scores showed quite large variability depending on the outcome and the subpopulation considered.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These results confirm the usefulness of the short French ÖMPSQ for prediction of the evolution of (sub) acute and chronic patients with spinal and limb pain, whatever its duration. However, increasing population heterogeneity results in slightly worse predictive performance and largely variable cutoff scores. Consequently, it might be difficult to choose universal cutoff scores and other criteria, such as patients' values and the available resources for patient management, should be taken into account.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35365109
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04944-9
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04944-9
pmc: PMC8976369
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
311Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Turk J Emerg Med. 2018 Aug 07;18(3):91-93
pubmed: 30191186
J Occup Rehabil. 2015 Mar;25(1):240-55
pubmed: 25100443
BMJ Open. 2017 Jan 17;7(1):e012901
pubmed: 28096253
Radiology. 1983 Sep;148(3):839-43
pubmed: 6878708
Arthritis Rheum. 2008 May 15;59(5):632-41
pubmed: 18438893
Clin J Pain. 2003 Mar-Apr;19(2):80-6
pubmed: 12616177
BMC Med. 2017 Jan 19;15(1):13
pubmed: 28100231
BMJ. 2006 Apr 1;332(7544):749-55
pubmed: 16484239
Gastroenterology. 2017 Apr;152(5):1042-1054.e1
pubmed: 28069350
Pain. 2005 Oct;117(3):304-313
pubmed: 16153772
Ann Fam Med. 2014 Mar-Apr;12(2):102-11
pubmed: 24615305
Eur Spine J. 2006 Mar;15 Suppl 2:S169-91
pubmed: 16550447
Eur J Pain. 2010 Jan;14(1):83-9
pubmed: 19223271
Eur J Pain. 2013 Jan;17(1):5-15
pubmed: 22641374
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2012 May;55(4):263-78
pubmed: 22537714
Phys Ther. 2011 May;91(5):737-53
pubmed: 21451099
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2016;29(1):135-43
pubmed: 26406190
Eur J Pain. 2006 May;10(4):287-333
pubmed: 16095934
Malawi Med J. 2012 Sep;24(3):69-71
pubmed: 23638278
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 06;6(1):e007616
pubmed: 26739716
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 2;7(6):e014939
pubmed: 28674139
Pain. 2008 Aug 31;138(2):267-276
pubmed: 18226858
Clin J Pain. 2013 May;29(5):411-6
pubmed: 23549065
BMC Public Health. 2013 Dec 24;13:1229
pubmed: 24365383
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019 May;62(3):178-188
pubmed: 30342997
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2015 Jan;19(1):465
pubmed: 25416458
Clin J Pain. 2012 Nov-Dec;28(9):819-41
pubmed: 22760489
Br J Gen Pract. 2007 Aug;57(541):655-61
pubmed: 17688762
J Occup Rehabil. 2013 Sep;23(3):361-70
pubmed: 23179745
Lancet. 2011 Oct 29;378(9802):1560-71
pubmed: 21963002
Occup Environ Med. 2008 Aug;65(8):507-17
pubmed: 18417552
Clin J Pain. 2006 Jun;22(5):458-67
pubmed: 16772801
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Sep;50(5):507-516
pubmed: 31313850
Eur Spine J. 2016 Sep;25(9):2741-9
pubmed: 27272277
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017 Jun;53(3):359-365
pubmed: 28382810
J Occup Rehabil. 2017 Dec;27(4):584-592
pubmed: 28028688
Pain Res Manag. 2018 Oct 1;2018:4696180
pubmed: 30364097
Pain. 1987 Aug;30(2):177-189
pubmed: 3670869
J Occup Rehabil. 2014 Jun;24(2):278-86
pubmed: 23771777
Clin J Pain. 2000 Sep;16(3):214-28
pubmed: 11014395
Clin J Pain. 2001 Sep;17(3):256-63
pubmed: 11587118
Eur Spine J. 2016 Jan;25(1):325-332
pubmed: 26310842
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Oct 29;12:157
pubmed: 25358630
Eur J Pain. 2009 Aug;13(7):719-30
pubmed: 18952472
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Oct 15;36(22):1891-5
pubmed: 21192286