Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36386549›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Rheumatology2022

Risk-based stratified primary care for common musculoskeletal pain presentations (STarT MSK): a cluster-randomised, controlled trial.

Jonathan C Hill, Stefannie Garvin, Kieran Bromley, Benjamin Saunders, Jesse Kigozi, Vince Cooper, Martyn Lewis, Joanne Protheroe, Simon Wathall, Adrian Chudyk and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

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

17 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonathan C HillPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Stefannie GarvinKeele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Kieran BromleyPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Benjamin SaundersPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Jesse KigoziHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Vince CooperPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Martyn LewisPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Joanne ProtheroePrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Simon WathallKeele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Adrian ChudykPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Kate M DunnPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Hollie BirkinshawPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Sue JowettHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Elaine M HayPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Danielle van der WindtPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Christian MallenPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Nadine E FosterPrimary Care Centre Versus Arthritis, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Birmingham · GBKeele University · GBVersus Arthritis · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Risk-based stratified care shows clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness versus usual primary care for non-specific low back pain but is untested for other common musculoskeletal disorders. We aimed to test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care risk stratification (using Keele's STarT MSK Tool and risk-matched treatments) versus usual care for the five most common musculoskeletal presentations (back, neck, knee, shoulder, and multi-site pain). Methods: In this cluster-randomised, controlled trial in UK primary care with embedded qualitative and health economic studies we recruited patients from 24 general practices in the West Midlands region of England. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older whose general practitioner (GP) confirmed a consultation for a musculoskeletal presentation. General practices that consented to participate via a representative of the cluster were randomly assigned (1:1) to intervention or usual care, using stratified block randomisation. Researchers involved in data collection, outcome data entry, and statistical analysis were masked at both the cluster and individual participant level. Participating patients were told the study was examining GP treatment of common aches and pains and were not aware they were in a randomised trial. GPs in practices allocated to the intervention group were supported to deliver risk-based stratified care using a bespoke computer-based template, including the risk-stratification tool, and risk-matched treatment options for patients at low, medium, or high risk of poor disability or pain outcomes. There were 15 risk-matched treatment options. In the usual care group, patients with musculoskeletal pain consulting their GP received treatment as usual, typically including advice and education, medication, referral for investigations or tests, or referral to other services. The primary outcome was time-averaged pain intensity over 6 months. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN15366334. Results: Between May 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, 104 GPs from 24 practices (12 per study group) identified 2494 patients with musculoskeletal pain. 1211 (49%) participants consented to questionnaires (534 in the intervention group and 677 in the usual care group), with 1070 (88%) completing the follow-up questionnaire at 6 months. We found no significant difference in time-averaged pain intensity (mean(SD) mean 4·4 [SD 2·3] in the intervention group Interpretation: Risk stratification for patients in primary care with common musculoskeletal presentations did not lead to significant improvements in pain or function, although some aspects of GP decision making were affected, and GP and patients had positive experiences. The costs of risk-based stratified care were similar to usual care, and such a strategy only offers marginal changes in cost-effectiveness outcomes. The clinical implications from this trial are largely inconclusive. Funding: National Institute for Health Research.

Identifiers

PMID36386549
PMCPMC9649927
OpenAlexW4285601952

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.