Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32035553›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2020

Plaster cast versus functional brace for non-surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture (UKSTAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

Matthew L Costa, Juul Achten, Ioana R Marian, Susan J Dutton, Sarah E Lamb, Benjamin Ollivere, Mandy Maredza, Stavros Petrou, Rebecca S Kearney, UKSTAR trial collaborators

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-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, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Plaster cast versus functional bracing for Achilles tendon rupture: the UKSTAR RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew L CostaOxford Trauma, Nuffield Department of Rheumatology, Musculoskeletal and Orthopaedic Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: matthew.costa@ndorms.ox.ac.uk.
Juul AchtenOxford Trauma, Nuffield Department of Rheumatology, Musculoskeletal and Orthopaedic Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ioana R MarianOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Rheumatology, Musculoskeletal and Orthopaedic Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Susan J DuttonOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Rheumatology, Musculoskeletal and Orthopaedic Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah E LambOxford Trauma, Nuffield Department of Rheumatology, Musculoskeletal and Orthopaedic Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Benjamin OllivereDivision of Rheumatology, Orthopaedics and Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Mandy MaredzaWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Stavros PetrouWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rebecca S KearneyWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
UKSTAR trial collaborators
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health HTA/13/115/62
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with Achilles tendon rupture who have non-operative treatment have traditionally been treated with immobilisation of the tendon in plaster casts for several weeks. Functional bracing is an alternative non-operative treatment that allows earlier mobilisation, but evidence on its effectiveness and safety is scarce. The aim of the UKSTAR trial was to compare functional and quality-of-life outcomes and resource use in patients treated non-operatively with plaster cast versus functional brace.

methodsUKSTAR was a pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at 39 hospitals in the UK. Patients (aged ≥16 years) who were being treated non-operatively for a primary Achilles tendon rupture at the participating centres were potentially eligible. The exclusion criteria were presenting more than 14 days after injury, previous rupture of the same Achilles tendon, or being unable to complete the questionnaires. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a plaster cast or functional brace using a centralised web-based system. Because the interventions were clearly visible, neither patients nor clinicians could be masked. Participants wore the intervention for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was patient-reported Achilles tendon rupture score (ATRS) at 9 months, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients in the groups to which they were allocated, excluding participants who withdrew or died before providing any outcome data). The main safety outcome was the incidence of tendon re-rupture. Resource use was recorded from a health and personal social care perspective. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN62639639.

findingsBetween Aug 15, 2016, and May 31, 2018, 1451 patients were screened, of whom 540 participants (mean age 48·7 years, 79% male) were randomly allocated to receive plaster cast (n=266) or functional brace (n=274). 527 (98%) of 540 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, and 13 (2%) were excluded because they withdrew or died before providing any outcome data. There was no difference in ATRS at 9 months post injury (cast group n=244, mean ATRS 74∙4 [SD 19∙8]; functional brace group n=259, ATRS 72∙8 [20∙4]; adjusted mean difference -1∙38 [95% CI -4∙9 to 2∙1], p=0·44). There was no difference in the rate of re-rupture of the tendon (17 [6%] of 266 in the plaster cast group vs 13 [5%] of 274 in the functional brace group, p=0·40). The mean total health and personal social care cost was £1181 for the plaster cast group and £1078 for the functional bract group (mean between-group difference -£103 [95% CI -289 to 84]).

interpretationTraditional plaster casting was not found to be superior to early weight-bearing in a functional brace, as measured by ATRS, in the management of patients treated non-surgically for Achilles tendon rupture. Clinicians may consider the use of early weight-bearing in a functional brace as a safe and cost-effective alternative to plaster casting.

fundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Indexed as

BracesCasts, SurgicalAchilles TendonAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansImmobilizationMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeRuptureWeight-Bearing

Identifiers

PMID32035553
PMCPMC7016510
OpenAlexW3004557460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.