ArticleBMJ open2025
Developing a core outcome set for sciatica: a scoping review of outcome measures.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOutcome measures used in sciatica research lack standardisation, making it difficult to combine data for analysis. This scoping review identified and categorised Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) employed in randomised controlled trials investigating sciatica interventions, providing a foundation for developing a consensus-based core outcome set.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central for research published between 1999 and 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that involved patients with sciatica and used at least one PROM. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening and data extraction were performed independently by at least two reviewers. PROMs were categorised using the OMERACT Filter 2.0 framework, inductively sub-categorised into domains, and then the frequency was counted to identify patterns of use. Collection time points and intervention type were also assessed.
results187 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies employed 69 different PROMs, collected 548 times across all papers. The Visual Analogue Scale for pain (n=115), Oswestry Disability Index (n=109) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (n=74) were most frequently used. PROMs predominantly addressed the pathophysiological (n=274) and life impact (n=262) domains, with minimal attention to resource use/economic impact (n=12). Injection-based interventions were the most studied treatment approach. Follow-up periods using the same PROMs varied considerably between studies, with trends by intervention type.
conclusionsThis review identified and categorised PROMs from numerous research studies, revealing substantial heterogeneity in outcome measurement for sciatica trials. This demonstrates the need for a standardised core outcome set. The predominance of use of non-sciatica-specific pain and disability measures suggests potential gaps in capturing sciatica-specific outcomes. Inconsistent follow-up durations and administration methods further highlight the requirement for standardisation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.