Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23360891›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013

Effectiveness of PhysioDirect telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Chris Salisbury, Alan A Montgomery, Sandra Hollinghurst, Cherida Hopper, Annette Bishop, Angelo Franchini, Surinder Kaur, Joanna Coast, Jeanette Hall, Sean Grove and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Interventions to reduce waiting times for elective procedures.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. First contact physiotherapy: an evaluation of clinical effectiveness and costs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  13. Converting PROMISHealth and quality of life outcomes · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chris SalisburyCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK. c.salisbury@bristol.ac.uk
Alan A Montgomery
Sandra Hollinghurst
Cherida Hopper
Annette Bishop
Angelo Franchini
Surinder Kaur
Joanna Coast
Jeanette Hall
Sean Grove
Nadine E Foster
University of Bristol · GBKeele University · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness, effect on waiting times, and patient acceptability of PhysioDirect services in patients with musculoskeletal problems, compared with usual care.

designPragmatic randomised controlled trial to assess equivalence in clinical effectiveness. Patients were individually randomised in a 2:1 ratio to PhysioDirect or usual care.

settingFour physiotherapy services in England.

participantsAdults (aged ≥ 18 years) referred by general practitioners or self referred for musculoskeletal physiotherapy.

interventionsPhysioDirect services invited patients to telephone a physiotherapist for initial assessment and advice, followed by face-to-face physiotherapy if necessary. Usual care involved patients joining a waiting list for face-to-face treatment.

main outcome measuresNumbers of appointments, waiting time for treatment, and non-attendance rates. Primary outcome was physical health (SF-36v2 physical component score) at six months. Secondary outcomes included four other measures of health outcome, mental component score and scales from the SF-36v2, time lost from work, and patient satisfaction and preference. Participants were not blind to allocation, but outcome data were collected blind to allocation.

resultsOf 1506 patients allocated to PhysioDirect and 743 to usual care, 85% provided primary outcome data at six months (1283 and 629 patients, respectively). PhysioDirect patients had fewer face-to-face appointments than usual care patients (mean 1.91 v 3.11; incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.65)), a shorter waiting time (median 7 days v 34 days; arm time ratio 0.32 (0.29 to 0.35)), and lower rates of non-attendance (incidence rate ratio 0.55 (0.41 to 0.73)). After six months' follow-up, the SF-36v2 physical component score was equivalent between groups (adjusted difference in means -0.01 (-0.80 to 0.79)). Health outcome measures suggested a trend towards slightly greater improvement in the PhysioDirect arm at six week follow-up and no difference at six months. There was no difference in time lost from work. PhysioDirect patients were no more satisfied with access to physiotherapy than usual care patients, but had slightly lower satisfaction overall at six months (difference in satisfaction -3.8% (-7.3% to -0.3%); P=0.031). PhysioDirect patients were more likely than usual care patients to prefer PhysioDirect in future. No adverse events were detected.

conclusionsPhysioDirect is equally clinically effective compared with usual care, provides faster access to physiotherapy, and seems to be safe. However, it could be associated with slightly lower patient satisfaction.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN55666618.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesOutcome Assessment, Health CarePhysical Therapy ModalitiesSurveys and QuestionnairesTelephoneUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID23360891
PMCPMC3558547
OpenAlexW2061997274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.