ArticleThe Lancet. Rheumatology2020
Stratified care versus usual care for management of patients presenting with sciatica in primary care (SCOPiC): a randomised controlled trial.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for sciatica: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of musculoskeletal expert input on low back pain outcomes: A randomised controlled trial.PloS one · 2026Trial
- Participants' and physiotherapists' views on the delivery of a randomised controlled feasibility trial investigating a bespoke dynamic elastomeric fabric orthosis for women with chronic pelvic girdle pain: a qualitative exploration.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- Factors influencing referrals amongst allied health and medical practitioners managing people with musculoskeletal conditions in Australian primary care.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological and Pharmacological Treatments for Non-Acute Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Multicenter, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled, Parallel-Grouped Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A scoping review on implementation processes and outcomes of models of care for low back pain in primary healthcare.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- A critical review of the role of manual therapy in the treatment of individuals with low back pain.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2024Review
- Reducing strain on primary healthcare systems through innovative models of care: the impact of direct access physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions-an interrupted time series analysis.Family medicine and community health · 2024Article
- Low back pain management in primary healthcare: findings from a scoping review on models of care.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- The High Burden of Acute and Chronic Pain in General Practice in French-Speaking Belgium.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
- 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 · 2022Observational
- Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on a 'fast-track' pathway for patients with sciatica in primary care: qualitative findings from the SCOPiC stratified care trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
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
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.