Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32442141›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2020

Computer-Based Stratified Primary Care for Musculoskeletal Consultations Compared With Usual Care: Study Protocol for the STarT MSK Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Jonathan Hill, Stefannie Garvin, Ying Chen, Vincent Cooper, Simon Wathall, Bernadette Bartlam, Benjamin Saunders, Martyn Lewis, Joanne Protheroe, Adrian Chudyk and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Models of care for managing non-specific low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

18 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonathan HillInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6246-1409
Stefannie GarvinKeele Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8070-2074
Ying ChenInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5919-743X
Vincent CooperInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3045-8931
Simon WathallKeele Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7107-5785
Bernadette BartlamNanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8557-6222
Benjamin SaundersInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0856-1596
Martyn LewisInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5290-7833
Joanne ProtheroeInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9608-1487
Adrian ChudykInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2990-9651
Hollie BirkinshawInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0853-2995
Kate M DunnInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6202-2606
Sue JowettHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8936-3745
Raymond OppongHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0815-4616
Elaine HayInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9545-4296
Danielle van der WindtInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7248-6703
Christian MallenInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2677-1028
Nadine E FosterInstitute for Primary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4429-9756
Keele University · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBNanyang Technological University · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMusculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a major cause of pain and disability. We previously developed a prognostic tool (Start Back Tool) with demonstrated effectiveness in guiding primary care low back pain management by supporting decision making using matched treatments. A logical next step is to determine whether prognostic stratified care has benefits for a broader range of common MSK pain presentations.

objectiveThis study seeks to determine, in patients with 1 of the 5 most common MSK presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multisite pain), whether stratified care involving the use of the Keele Start MSK Tool to allocate individuals into low-, medium-, and high-risk subgroups, and matching these subgroups to recommended matched clinical management options, is clinical and cost-effective compared with usual nonstratified primary care.

methodsThis is a pragmatic, two-arm parallel (stratified vs nonstratified care), cluster randomized controlled trial, with a health economic analysis and mixed methods process evaluation. The setting is UK primary care, involving 24 average-sized general practices randomized (stratified by practice size) in a 1:1 ratio (12 per arm) with blinding of trial statistician and outcome data collectors. Randomization units are general practices, and units of observation are adult MSK consulters without indicators of serious pathologies, urgent medical needs, or vulnerabilities. Potential participant records are tagged and individuals invited using a general practitioner (GP) point-of-consultation electronic medical record (EMR) template. The intervention is supported by an EMR template (computer-based) housing the Keele Start MSK Tool (to stratify into prognostic subgroups) and the recommended matched treatment options. The primary outcome using intention-to-treat analysis is pain intensity, measured monthly over 6 months. Secondary outcomes include physical function and quality of life, and an anonymized EMR audit to capture clinician decision making. The economic evaluation is focused on the estimation of incremental quality-adjusted life years and MSK pain-related health care costs. The process evaluation is exploring a range of potential factors influencing the intervention and understanding how it is perceived by patients and clinicians, with quantitative analyses focusing on a priori hypothesized intervention targets and qualitative approaches using focus groups and interviews. The target sample size is 1200 patients from 24 general practices, with >5000 MSK consultations available for anonymized medical record data comparisons.

resultsTrial recruitment commenced on May 18, 2018, and ended on July 15, 2019, after a 14-month recruitment period in 24 GP practices. Follow-up and interview data collection was completed in February 2020.

conclusionsThis trial is the first attempt, as far as we know, at testing a prognostic stratified care approach for primary care patients with MSK pain. The results of this trial should be available by the summer of 2020.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15366334; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15366334. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17939.

Indexed as

back paineconomicsmusculoskeletalosteoarthritisoutcome and process assessment, health careprimary health careprognosisqualitative researchrandomized controlled trialstratified caretherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID32442141
PMCPMC7381066
OpenAlexW3008124414

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.