Clinical diagnostic model for sciatica developed in primary care patients with low back-related leg pain

Background Identification of sciatica may assist timely management but can be challenging in clinical practice. Diagnostic models to identify sciatica have mainly been developed in secondary care settings with conflicting reference standard selection. This study explores the challenges of reference standard selection and aims to ascertain which combination of clinical assessment items best identify sciatica in people seeking primary healthcare. Methods Data on 394 low back-related leg pain consulters were analysed. Potential sciatica indicators were seven clinical assessment items. Two reference standards were used: (i) high confidence sciatica clinical diagnosis; (ii) high confidence sciatica clinical diagnosis with confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging findings. Multivariable logistic regression models were produced for both reference standards. A tool predicting sciatica diagnosis in low back-related leg pain was derived. Latent class modelling explored the validity of the reference standard. Results Model (i) retained five items; model (ii) retained six items. Four items remained in both models: below knee pain, leg pain worse than back pain, positive neural tension tests and neurological deficit. Model (i) was well calibrated (p = 0.18), discrimination was area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.95 (95% CI 0.93, 0.98). Model (ii) showed good discrimination (AUC 0.82; 0.78, 0.86) but poor calibration (p = 0.004). Bootstrapping revealed minimal overfitting in both models. Agreement between the two latent classes and clinical diagnosis groups defined by model (i) was substantial, and fair for model (ii). Conclusion Four clinical assessment items were common in both reference standard definitions of sciatica. A simple scoring tool for identifying sciatica was developed. These criteria could be used clinically and in research to improve accuracy of identification of this subgroup of back pain patients

Novel approach to characterising individuals with low back-related leg pain: cluster identification with latent class analysis and 12-month follow-up

Traditionally, low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is diagnosed clinically as referred leg pain or sciatica (nerve root involvement). However, within the spectrum of LBLP, we hypothesised that there may be other unrecognised patient subgroups. This study aimed to identify clusters of patients with LBLP using latent class analysis and describe their clinical course. The study population was 609 LBLP primary care consulters. Variables from clinical assessment were included in the latent class analysis. Characteristics of the statistically identified clusters were compared, and their clinical course over 1 year was described. A 5 cluster solution was optimal. Cluster 1 (n = 104) had mild leg pain severity and was considered to represent a referred leg pain group with no clinical signs, suggesting nerve root involvement (sciatica). Cluster 2 (n = 122), cluster 3 (n = 188), and cluster 4 (n = 69) had mild, moderate, and severe pain and disability, respectively, and response to clinical assessment items suggested categories of mild, moderate, and severe sciatica. Cluster 5 (n = 126) had high pain and disability, longer pain duration, and more comorbidities and was difficult to map to a clinical diagnosis. Most improvement for pain and disability was seen in the first 4 months for all clusters. At 12 months, the proportion of patients reporting recovery ranged from 27% for cluster 5 to 45% for cluster 2 (mild sciatica). This is the first study that empirically shows the variability in profile and clinical course of patients with LBLP including sciatica. More homogenous groups were identified, which could be considered in future clinical and research settings

Determining one-year trajectories of low back related leg pain in primary care patients: growth mixture modelling of a prospective cohort study

Objective The clinical presentation and outcome of patients with back and leg pain in primary care are heterogeneous and may be better understood by identification of homogeneous and clinically meaningful subgroups. Subgroups of patients with different back pain trajectories have been identified, but little is known about the trajectories for patients with back‐related leg pain. This study sought to identify distinct leg pain trajectories, and baseline characteristics associated with membership of each group, in primary care patients. Methods Monthly data on leg pain intensity were collected over 12 months for 609 patients participating in a prospective cohort study of adult patients seeking healthcare for low back and leg pain including sciatica, of any duration and severity, from their general practitioner. Growth mixture modelling was used to identify clusters of patients with distinct leg pain trajectories. Trajectories were characterised using baseline demographic and clinical examination data. Multinomial logistic regression was used to predict latent class‐membership with a range of covariates. Results Four clusters were identified: (1) improving mild pain (58%), (2) persistent moderate pain (26%), (3) persistent severe pain (13%), and (4) improving severe pain (3%). Clusters showed statistically significant differences with a number of baseline characteristics. Conclusion Four trajectories of leg pain were identified. Clusters 1, 2 and 3 were generally comparable to back pain trajectories, while cluster 4, with major improvement in pain, is infrequently identified. Awareness of such distinct patient groups improves understanding of the course of leg pain and may provide a basis of classification for intervention

Optimising outcomes of exercise and corticosteroid injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome: a factorial randomised trial

Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness of (1) physiotherapist-led exercise versus an exercise leaflet, and (2) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection versus unguided injection for pain and function in subacromial pain (formerly impingement) syndrome (SAPS).Methods: This was a single-blind 2×2 factorial randomised trial. Adults with SAPS were randomised equally to one of four treatment groups: (1) ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection and physiotherapist-led exercise, (2) ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection and an exercise leaflet, (3) unguided corticosteroid injection and physiotherapist-led exercise and (4) unguided corticosteroid injection and an exercise leaflet. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), collected at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months and compared at 6 weeks for the injection interventions and 6 months for the exercise interventions by intention to treat.Results: We recruited 256 participants (64 treatment per group). Response rates for the primary outcome were 94% at 6 weeks, 88% at 6 months and 80% at 12 months. Greater improvement in total SPADI score was seen with physiotherapist-led exercise than with the exercise leaflet at 6 months (adjusted mean difference -8.23; 95% CI -14.14 to -2.32). There were no significant differences between the injection groups at 6 weeks (-2.04; -7.29 to 3.22), 6 months (-2.36; -8.16 to 3.44) or 12 months (1.59; -5.54 to 8.72).Conclusions: In patients with SAPS, physiotherapist-led exercise leads to greater improvements in pain and function than an exercise leaflet. Ultrasound guidance confers no additional benefit over unguided corticosteroid injection

Change in physical activity level and clinical outcomes in older adults with knee pain: a secondary analysis from a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Exercise interventions improve clinical outcomes of pain and function in adults with knee pain due to osteoarthritis and higher levels of physical activity are associated with lower severity of pain and higher levels of physical functioning in older adults with knee osteoarthritis in cross-sectional studies. However, to date no studies have investigated if change in physical activity level during exercise interventions can explain clinical outcomes of pain and function. This study aimed to investigate if change in physical activity during exercise interventions is associated with future pain and physical function in older adults with knee pain. METHODS: Secondary longitudinal data analyses of a three armed exercise intervention randomised controlled trial. Participants were adults with knee pain attributed to osteoarthritis, over the age of 45 years old (n = 514) from Primary Care Services in the Midlands and Northwest regions of England. Crude and adjusted associations between absolute change in physical activity from baseline to 3 months (measured by the self-report Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE)) and i) pain ii) physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and iii) treatment response (OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria) at 3 and 6 months follow-up were investigated using linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: Change in physical activity level was not associated with future pain, function or treatment response outcomes in crude or adjusted models at 3 or 6 months (P > 0.05). A 10 point increase in PASE was not associated with pain β = - 0.01 (- 0.05, 0.02), physical function β = - 0.09 (- 0.19, 0.02) or likelihood (odds ratio) of treatment response 1.02 (0.99, 1.04) at 3 months adjusting for sociodemographics, clinical covariates and the trial intervention arm. Findings were similar for 6 month outcome models. CONCLUSIONS: Change in physical activity did not explain future clinical outcomes of pain and function in this study. Other factors may be responsible for clinical improvements following exercise interventions. However, the PASE may not be sufficiently responsive to measure change in physical activity level. We also recommend further investigation into the responsiveness of commonly used physical activity measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ( ISRCTN93634563 ). Registered 29th September 2011

A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial to investigate the addition of direct access to physiotherapy to usual GP-led primary care for adults with musculoskeletal pain: the STEMS pilot trial protocol (ISRCTN23378642)

Background Musculoskeletal problems are common, accounting for up to 30 % of general practitioner (GP) consultations and are a major cause of chronic disability worldwide. Demand for health care for musculoskeletal conditions is likely to continue to rise given the ageing population and the increasing impact of these common painful conditions. Physiotherapists are well equipped to deliver evidence-based management for these conditions. Direct access allows patients to access physiotherapy without seeing their GP or another referring practitioner first; however, for most patients in the UK, access to National Health Service physiotherapy is controlled through GP referral. Methods/Design The aim of this pilot, pragmatic, cluster trial is to assess the feasibility of a future large trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the additional offer of direct access to physiotherapy versus continuing with usual GP-led primary care alone for adults with common musculoskeletal problems. The pilot will focus on process outcomes to assess feasibility, although performance of the likely outcomes of a main trial will also be assessed. This is a two-arm parallel, cluster RCT where GP practices are the units of randomisation (the clusters), yet data are collected from individual patients with musculoskeletal problems (the participants). A direct access service will be set up in the participating physiotherapy service to provide the option of direct access to patients of the intervention arm practices. Inclusion criteria are broad to reflect the ‘real-world’ operation of an NHS physiotherapy direct access service for patients with musculoskeletal pain. Data collection will be through patient self-reported questionnaires at baseline, 2, 6 and 12 months and medical record review. Discussion No previous trials have been conducted into direct access to physiotherapy for patients with musculoskeletal problems. The strengths of the STEMS pilot trial are its size, the length of follow-up, and collection of process, clinical and cost outcomes to fully inform a future main trial to meet calls to provide robust trial evidence of the impact on clinical outcomes, work loss and costs to provide clinicians and service funders with the high quality trial data they need to guide decisions on the best models of care

STEMS pilot trial:a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial to investigate the addition of patient direct access to physiotherapy to usual GP-led primary care for adults with musculoskeletal pain

INTRODUCTION: Around 17% of general practitioner (GP) consultations are for musculoskeletal conditions, which will rise as the population ages. Patient direct access to physiotherapy provides one solution, yet adoption in the National Health Service (NHS) has been slow. SETTING: A pilot, pragmatic, non-inferiority, cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) in general practice and physiotherapy services in the UK. OBJECTIVES: Investigate feasibility of a main RCT. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients registered in participating practices and consulting with a musculoskeletal problem. INTERVENTIONS: 4 general practices (clusters) randomised to provide GP-led care as usual or the addition of a patient direct access to physiotherapy pathway. OUTCOMES: Process outcomes and exploratory analyses of clinical and cost outcomes. DATA COLLECTION: Participant-level data were collected via questionnaires at identification, 2, 6 and 12 months and through medical records. BLINDING: The study statistician and research nurses were blinded to practice allocation. RESULTS: Of 2696 patients invited to complete study questionnaires, 978 participated (intervention group n=425, control arm n=553) and were analysed. Participant recruitment was completed in 6 months. Follow-up rates were 78% (6 months) and 71% (12 months). No evidence of selection bias was observed. The direct access pathway was used by 90% of patients in intervention practices needing physiotherapy. Some increase in referrals to physiotherapy occurred from one practice, although waiting times for physiotherapy did not increase (28 days before, 26 days after introduction of direct access). No safety issues were identified. Clinical and cost outcomes were similar in both groups. Exploratory estimates of between group effect (using 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS)) at 6 months was -0.28 (95% CI -1.35 to 0.79) and at 12 months 0.12 (95% CI -1.27 to 1.51). CONCLUSIONS: A full RCT is feasible and will provide trial evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of patient direct access to physiotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23378642