Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32046647›Full record

Trial reportBMC family practice2020

Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for musculoskeletal pain: findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

J C Hill, S Garvin, Y Chen, V Cooper, S Wathall, B Saunders, M Lewis, J Protheroe, A Chudyk, K M Dunn and 4 more

Abstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

J C HillPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK. j.hill@keele.ac.uk.
S GarvinKeele Clinical Trials Unit, School for Primary, Community and Social Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Keele University, Newcastle, UK.
Y ChenPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
V CooperPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
S WathallPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
B SaundersPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
M LewisPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
J ProtheroePrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
A ChudykPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
K M DunnPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
E HayPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
D van der WindtPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
C MallenPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.
N E FosterPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-015Department of Health RP-PG-1211-20010Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-1211-20010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMusculoskeletal (MSK) pain from the five most common presentations to primary care (back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain), where the majority of patients are managed, is a costly global health challenge. At present, first-line decision-making is based on clinical reasoning and stratified models of care have only been tested in patients with low back pain. We therefore, examined the feasibility of; a) a future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), and b) General Practitioners (GPs) providing stratified care at the point-of-consultation for these five most common MSK pain presentations.

methodsThe design was a pragmatic pilot, two parallel-arm (stratified versus non-stratified care), cluster RCT and the setting was 8 UK GP practices (4 intervention, 4 control) with randomisation (stratified by practice size) and blinding of trial statistician and outcome data-collectors. Participants were adult consulters with MSK pain without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records were tagged and individuals sent postal invitations using a GP point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention was supported by the EMR template housing the Keele STarT MSK Tool (to stratify into low, medium and high-risk prognostic subgroups of persistent pain and disability) and recommended matched treatment options. Feasibility outcomes included exploration of recruitment and follow-up rates, selection bias, and GP intervention fidelity. To capture recommended outcomes including pain and function, participants completed an initial questionnaire, brief monthly questionnaire (postal or SMS), and 6-month follow-up questionnaire. An anonymised EMR audit described GP decision-making.

resultsGPs screened 3063 patients (intervention = 1591, control = 1472), completed the EMR template with 1237 eligible patients (intervention = 513, control = 724) and 524 participants (42%) consented to data collection (intervention = 231, control = 293). Recruitment took 28 weeks (target 12 weeks) with > 90% follow-up retention (target > 75%). We detected no selection bias of concern and no harms identified. GP stratification tool fidelity failed to achieve a-priori success criteria, whilst fidelity to the matched treatments achieved "complete success".

conclusionsA future definitive cluster RCT of stratified care for MSK pain is feasible and is underway, following key amendments including a clinician-completed version of the stratification tool and refinements to recommended matched treatments.

trial registrationName of the registry: ISRCTN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 15366334. Date of registration: 06/04/2016.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingPatient SelectionPrimary Health CareAdultAgedAnalgesicsFeasibility StudiesFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal PainNonprescription DrugsPain ClinicsPatient Education as TopicAnalgesicsNonprescription DrugsGeneral practiceMusculoskeletal painPrimary carePrognosisStratified care

Identifiers

PMID32046647
PMCPMC7014664

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.