header advert
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:
Applied filters
Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 101-B, Issue SUPP_10 | Pages 2 - 2
1 Oct 2019
Konstantinou K Lewis M Dunn K Hill J Artus M Foster N
Full Access

Background and Purpose

Healthcare for sciatica is usually ‘stepped’ with initial advice and analgesia, then physiotherapy, then more invasive interventions if symptoms continue. The SCOPiC trial tested a stratified care algorithm combining prognostic and clinical characteristics to allocate patients into one of three groups, with matched care pathways, and compared the effectiveness of stratified care (SC) with non-stratified, usual care (UC).

Methods

Pragmatic two-parallel arm RCT with 476 adults recruited from 42 GP practices and randomised (1:1) to either SC or UC (238 per arm). In SC, participants in group 1 were offered up to 2 advice/treatment sessions with a physiotherapist, group 2 were offered up to 6 physiotherapy sessions, and group 3 was ‘fast-tracked’ to MRI and spinal specialist opinion. Primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (6-point ordinal scale) collected via text messages. Secondary outcomes (4 and 12 months) included leg and back pain intensity, physical function, psychological status, time-off-work, satisfaction with care. Primary analysis was by intention to treat.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 101-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 21 - 21
1 Sep 2019
Saunders B Bartlam B Artus M Foster N Konstantinou K
Full Access

Background

Sciatica is common and associated with significant impacts for the individual, health care and society. The SCOPiC randomised controlled trial (RCT) is investigating whether stratified primary care for sciatica is more effective and cost-effective than usual, non-stratified primary care. Stratified care involves subgrouping patients to one of three groups based on a combination of prognostic and clinical indicators. Patients in one of these groups are ‘fast-tracked’ with an MRI scan to spinal specialist opinion. Our aim was to understand the perspectives of clinicians on the acceptability of this ‘fast-track’ pathway.

Methods

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with general practitioners, spinal specialist physiotherapists and spinal surgeons (n=20 in total). Interviews were fully transcribed, and data were analysed using the constant comparison method.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_2 | Pages 27 - 27
1 Feb 2018
Zemedikun D Roberts T Artus M Guariglia A Kigozi J Wynn-Jones G
Full Access

Purpose

This review aims to explore the methodologies used for estimating the direct and indirect costs attributed to back pain in developed countries.

Methods

Six databases were searched to uncover studies about the direct and indirect costs of back pain published in English upto November 2016. Data extracted included study characteristics, cost categories and analysis methods. Results were synthesised descriptively.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 99-B, Issue SUPP_10 | Pages 3 - 3
1 May 2017
Wynne-Jones G Artus M Bishop A Lawton S Lewis M Main C Sowden G Wathall S Burton A van der Windt D Hay E
Full Access

Introduction

Early intervention is advocated to prevent long-term work absence due to musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. The SWAP trial tested whether adding a vocational advice (VA) service to best current care led to fewer days work absence over 4 months.

Methods

The SWAP trial was a cluster randomised controlled trial in 6 general practices, 3 randomised to best current care (control), 3 randomised to best current care and the VA service (intervention). Patients were ≥18 years, absent from work ≤6 months or struggling at work due to MSK pain. Primary outcome was number of days absent over 4 months. Exploratory subgroup analyses examined whether the effect was larger for patients with spinal pain compared to other MSK pain.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 93-B, Issue SUPP_IV | Pages 486 - 486
1 Nov 2011
Artus M van der Windt D Jordan K Hay E
Full Access

Objectives: To assess the evidence for a similar pattern of response to treatment among non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) patients in clinical trials.

Design: A systematic review of published trials on NSLBP and meta-analysis of within-group treatment effect calculated as the Standardised Mean Difference (SMD).

Data source: The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials’ database (CENTRAL), April 2007.

Review methods: We included randomised controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of primary care treatments in patients with NSLBP aged 18 years or over. We excluded trials conducted in patients with LBP of identifiable cause (e.g. disc herniation or arthritis), post-operative or post-traumatic back pain, or back pain during pregnancy or labour. We chose outcome measures commonly used in the majority of NSLBP trials, namely the Visual Analogue scale (VAS) for pain severity, Roland Morris Disability questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability questionnaire (ODQ) for physical functioning.

Results: 118 trials investigating a wide range of primary care treatment for NSLBP were included. In spite of heterogeneity, we found evidence for a similar pattern of symptom improvement represented by large SMDs at six weeks follow up ((0.86 for pain, 95% CI = 0.65,1.07, 0.97 for RMDQ, 95% CI = 0.66,1.28 and 0.98 for ODQ, 95% CI = 0.62,1.33) followed by much smaller further change at 13 week (pain 1.07 95% CI = 0.87,1.27, RMDQ 0.93 95% CI = 0.67,1.20, ODQ 0.92 95% CI = 0.70,1.14), 27 week (pain 1.03 95% CI = 0.82,1.25, RMDQ 0.91 95% CI = 0.59,1.24, ODQ 1.08 95% CI = 0.80,1.36 and 52 week (pain 0.88 95% CI = 0.60,1.1, RMDQ 1.01 95% CI = 0.68,1.34, ODQ 1.14 95% CI = 0.88,1.39). There was no statistically significant difference between responses in various trials arms (index treatment, active comparator treatment, placebo or sham treatment, usual care or waiting list controls). There was also no statistically significant difference between responses to pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments.

Conclusions: NSLBP symptoms seem to improve very well and in a similar pattern in clinical trials following a wide variety of active as well as inactive treatments. It is important to explore factors other than the treatments themselves that might influence symptom improvement. Exploring possible sources of underlying heterogeneity in responses might lead to some of these factors.

Conflict of Interest: None

Source of Funding: This work is part of a PhD fellowship funded by the arc (Arthritis research campaign).