Morso Lars, Kongsted Alice, Hestbaek Lise, Kent Peter
Centre for Quality, Region of Southern Denmark, P.V. Tuxensvej 5, 5500, Middelfart, Denmark.
Nordic Institute of Chiropractic and Clinical Biomechanics, Odense, Denmark.
Eur Spine J. 2016 Mar;25(3):936-44. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-3915-0. Epub 2015 Apr 3.
The prognostic ability of the STarT Back Tool (SBT) reportedly varies, but the factors affecting this are unclear. This study investigated the influences of care setting (chiropractic, GP, physiotherapy, spine centre), episode duration (0-2, 3-4, 4-12, >12 weeks), and outcome time period (3, 6, 12 months) on SBT prognostic ability.
This was a secondary analysis of data from three primary care cohorts [chiropractic (n = 416), GP (n = 265), and physiotherapy (n = 200) practices] and one cohort from a secondary care outpatient spine centre (n = 974) in Denmark. Care pathways were not systematically affected by SBT risk subgroup (non-stratified care). Using generalised estimating equations, we investigated statistical interactions between SBT risk subgroups and potentially influential factors on the prognostic ability of the SBT subgroups, when Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire scores were the outcome.
SBT risk subgroup, age, care setting, and episode duration were all independent prognostic factors. The only investigated factor that modified the prognostic ability of the SBT subgroups was episode duration.
These results indicate that the prognostic ability of the SBT in these non-stratified care settings was unaffected by care setting on its own. However, the prognosis of patients is affected by diverse clinical characteristics that differ between patient populations, many of which are not assessed by the SBT. When controlling for some of those factors and testing potential interactions, the results showed that only episode duration affected the SBT prognostic ability and, specifically, that the SBT was less predictive in very acute patients (<2 weeks duration).
据报道,STarT Back工具(SBT)的预后能力存在差异,但其影响因素尚不清楚。本研究调查了护理机构(整脊疗法、全科医生、物理治疗、脊柱中心)、病程(0 - 2周、3 - 4周、4 - 12周、>12周)以及结局时间段(3个月、6个月、12个月)对SBT预后能力的影响。
这是对丹麦三个初级护理队列[整脊疗法(n = 416)、全科医生(n = 265)和物理治疗(n = 200)诊所]以及一个二级护理门诊脊柱中心队列(n = 974)的数据进行的二次分析。护理路径未受到SBT风险亚组的系统性影响(非分层护理)。当以罗兰·莫里斯残疾问卷评分作为结局时,我们使用广义估计方程研究了SBT风险亚组与对SBT亚组预后能力有潜在影响因素之间的统计交互作用。
SBT风险亚组、年龄、护理机构和病程均为独立的预后因素。唯一改变SBT亚组预后能力的调查因素是病程。
这些结果表明,在这些非分层护理环境中,SBT的预后能力本身不受护理机构的影响。然而,患者的预后受到不同患者群体之间存在差异的多种临床特征的影响,其中许多特征SBT并未评估。在控制其中一些因素并测试潜在交互作用时,结果表明只有病程影响SBT的预后能力,具体而言,SBT对非常急性的患者(病程<2周)的预测性较差。