Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32617529›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Rheumatology2020

Stratified care versus usual care for management of patients presenting with sciatica in primary care (SCOPiC): a randomised controlled trial.

Kika Konstantinou, Martyn Lewis, Kate M Dunn, Reuben Ogollah, Majid Artus, Jonathan C Hill, Gemma Hughes, Michelle Robinson, Benjamin Saunders, Bernadette Bartlam and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Rheumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Prognostic factors associated with outcome following an epidural steroid injection for disc-related sciatica: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. How effective are physiotherapy interventions in treating people with sciatica? A systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Clinical pathways for the management of low back pain from primary to specialised care: a systematic review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Predictors of outcome following an epidural steroid injection for disc-related sciatica: a Delphi consensus study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Prospective observational study investigating the predictive validity of the STarT Back tool and the clinical effectiveness of stratified care in an emergency department setting.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
    Observational
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Kika KonstantinouPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK; Haywood Hospital, Midlands Partnership Foundation NHS Trust, Staffordshire, UK. Electronic address: k.konstantinou@keele.ac.uk.
Martyn LewisPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK; Keele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Kate M DunnPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Reuben OgollahNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Majid ArtusPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Jonathan C HillPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Gemma HughesKeele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Michelle RobinsonKeele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Benjamin SaundersPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Bernadette BartlamPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK; Family Medicine and Primary Care, Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Jesse KigoziHealth Economics unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sue JowettPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK; Health Economics unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Christian D MallenPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Elaine M HayPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Danielle A van der WindtPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Nadine E FosterPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK; Keele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Keele, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP_2014-04-026Department of Health RP-PG-0617-20005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSciatica has a substantial impact on individuals and society. Stratified care has been shown to lead to better outcomes among patients with non-specific low back pain, but it has not been tested for sciatica. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care versus non-stratified usual care for patients presenting with sciatica in primary care.

methodsWe did a two-parallel arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial across three centres in the UK (North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales, and Cheshire). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica, access to a mobile phone or landline number, were not pregnant, were not currently receiving treatment for the same problem, and had no previous spinal surgery. Patients were recruited from general practices and randomly assigned (1:1) by a remote web-based service to stratified care or usual care, stratified by centre and stratification group allocation. In the stratified care arm, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services were used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 was offered brief advice and support in up to two physiotherapy sessions; group 2 was offered up to six physiotherapy sessions; and group 3 was fast-tracked to MRI and spinal specialist assessment within 4 weeks of randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, defined as "completely recovered" or "much better" on a 6-point ordinal scale, collected via text messages or telephone calls. Analyses were by intention to treat. Health-care costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN75449581.

findingsBetween May 28, 2015, and July 18, 2017, 476 patients from 42 general practices around three UK centres were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89% (9467 of 10 601 text messages sent; 4688 [88%] of 5310 in the stratified care arm and 4779 [90%] of 5291 in the usual care arm). Median time to symptom resolution was 10 weeks (95% CI 6·4-13·6) in the stratified care arm and 12 weeks (9·4-14·6) in the usual care arm, with the survival analysis showing no significant difference between the arms (hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·89-1·46]). Stratified care was not cost-effective compared to usual care.

interpretationThe stratified care model for patients with sciatica consulting in primary care was not better than usual care for either clinical or health economic outcomes. These results do not support a transition to this stratified care model for patients with sciatica.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Identifiers

PMID32617529
PMCPMC7323615

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.