Cited by 1,306Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial

Open access
Hill, Jonathan C, Whitehurst, David GT, Lewis, Martyn, Bryan, Stirling, Dunn, Kate M, Foster, Nadine E, Konstantinou, Kika, Main, Chris J +5 more·2011·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Back pain remains a challenge for primary care internationally. One model that has not been tested is stratification of the management according to the patient's prognosis (low, medium, or high risk). We compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention) with non-stratified current best practice (control).Methods 1573 adults (aged ≥18 years) with back pain (with or without radiculopathy) consultations at ten general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic. Eligible participants were randomly assigned by use of computer-generated stratified blocks with a 2:1 ratio to intervention or control group. Primary outcome was the effect of treatment on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, we focused on estimating incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs related to back pain. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN37113406.Findings 851 patients were assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283). Overall, adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4·7 [SD 5·9] vs 3·0 [5·9], between-group difference 1·81 [95% CI 1·06-2·57]) and at 12 months (4·3 [6·4] vs 3·3 [6·2], 1·06 [0·25-1·86]), equating to effect sizes of 0·32 (0·19-0·45) and 0·19 (0·04-0·33), respectively. At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0·039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240·01 vs £274·40) compared with the control group.Interpretation The results show that a stratified approach, by use of prognostic screening with matched pathways, will have important implications for the future management of back pain in primary care.Funding Arthritis Research UK.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60937-9

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is substantial uncertainty about the generalizability of formal prognostic scales such as the STarT Back instrument to subspecialty patients and older adults.

    “After considerable discussion about formal prognostic scales for stratification, such as the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment (STarT) Back instrument,60 the RTF decided there remained substantial uncertainty about generalizability to subspecialty patients and older adults.”
  • Recent work, such as the STarT Back project, has made important advances in prognostic stratification of patients with chronic low back pain.

    “Recent work such as the STarT Back project from the U.K. has made important advances in this regard,57–60”
  • In this study, the completion rate of 87.5% was higher than that reported for conventional or home-based rehabilitations (range 30-76.3%) and by other digital MSK interventions (73-87%).

    “In this study, we observed a completion rate of 87.5%, higher than that reported for conventional or home-based rehabilitations (range 30–76.3%) [34, 77, 78], and by other digital MSK interventions (73–87%) [62, 79].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hill, J. C., Whitehurst, D. G., Lewis, M., Bryan, S., Dunn, K. M., Foster, N. E., Konstantinou, K., Main, C. J., Mason, E., Somerville, S., Sowden, G., Vohora, K., & Hay, E. M.
Affiliations
  • Arthritis Research UK (GB)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Hill, Jonathan C
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
378
Issue
9802
Pages
1560-1571
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2160769294
Cited by
1,306
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 98 · 2021: 108 · 2020: 104 · 2019: 104 · 2018: 103 · 2017: 103 · 2016: 105 · 2015: 96 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 98 · 2012: 38
FWCI
52.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0707-10131)
  • Versus Arthritis (17741)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
low back pain, stratified care, primary care, radiculopathy, disability, quality-adjusted life years, cost-effectiveness, general practice
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Combined Modality Therapy, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Prognosis, Reference Values, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Cost Savings, Low Back Pain, Risk Assessment, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Disease Management, General Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review