Background. FORECAST is a prospective longitudinal cohort study exploring mechanism-based prognostic factors for pain persistence in sciatica. Here, we share an update on this largest deeply-phenotyped primary care sciatica cohort. Methods/results. Our cohort includes 180 people with sciatica (score >4 on Stynes’ Sum Score), aged 18–85, within 3 months of symptom onset. Psychosocial factors, self-reported sensory profiling, clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), biological samples (blood and skin samples), and Magnetic Resonance Neurography of lumbar nerve roots were collected at baseline. Pain persistence was determined at three and twelve months with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI) and a numeric pain rating scale (NRS) as primary outcomes. Recruitment nears completion, with 160 participants enrolled to date. 127 and 96 participants have completed 3 and 12 months follow-up respectively. Overall, 56% of our cohort are female, with a mean age (SD) of 54.14yrs (16.57). Ethnicity data approximates local populations. SBI at baseline was (median [IQR]) 13[10-17], and interim longitudinal data shows stepwise improvement at 3 and 12 months. Baseline ‘average’ pain intensity was 5.56 (2.15) for leg pain, and 4.14(2.82) for low back pain (LBP). Overall, pain scores decreased at 3 and 12 months, with greater reductions in leg pain than LBP at 12 months. However, around 55–80% and 40–65% of people reported persistent pain at 3 and 12 months respectively. Conclusion. Leg pain severity was moderate and higher than LBP at baseline. All primary outcome measures demonstrate improvement over time, however 40–65% of patients report persistent pain at 12 months. Conflicts of interest. LR: Paid facilitation of post-graduate courses internationally. SK, MT, FP, KM, WS, CP, CR, SC: No conflicts of interest. GC: Editor in Chief of Health Psychology Review. Director of board of directors, MentalCHealth Care setting NoordWestVlaanderen. JF: Copyright holder of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Served on a data monitoring committee for a clinical trial of 2 different surgical approaches to cervical disc herniation (FORVAD). Member of HTA Prioritisation Committee B: Inside hospital Care from 2015-February 2019. Member of HTA Interventional Procedures Panel from 2010–2015. Trustee and board member of 3 spine related charities – Back to Back; British Scoliosis Research Foundation and BackCare. Expert instructed by both claimant and defendant solicitors in negligence and person injury cases. GB: Paid consultancy (RNA-seq) with Ivy Farm and Coding.bio. ABS: Paid post-graduate lecturing internationally. Co-chair NeupSig sciatica working group (unpaid). Sources of funding. This project is funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP), a co-funded initiative by UKRI (MRC, BBSRC, ESRC), Versus Arthritis, the Medical Research Foundation and Eli Lilly and Company Ltd (Grant MR/W027003/1). Additional funding has been received from the back to back charity to expand longitudinal components of the study. LR has received support with PhD fees from the CSP charitable trust. ABS is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship. (222101/Z/20/Z). WS is partly funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. FP is funded by a Dorothy Hodgkin Career Development Fellowship in Chemistry in association with Somerville College. GB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (223149/Z/21/Z) and Diabetes UK (19/0005984). GC and KRM are partly funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP) PAINSTORM (MR/W002388/1). The UKRI and Versus Arhthritis (APDP) are the major funders of FORECAST. All other funders provided either some people support, or funded projects with legacy data that we reuse

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) for severe sciatica but there is uncertainty of effectiveness. The POiSE study aims to identify factors, routinely collected in clinical practice that predict outcome in patients who have ESI. This presentation describes characteristics and early clinical outcomes of POiSE participants. Methods. Prospective cohort study in 19 NHS spinal services in England, inviting patients with sciatica listed for an ESI. Participant baseline characteristics and 6-week follow-up outcomes are presented. Outcomes include pain intensity (0–10 NRS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index 0–100) and global change in symptoms. Results. Over 24 months, 693 patients were invited to participate and 353 (51%) completed baseline questionnaires. Mean (SD) age 49.0 years (14.4), 60% female, and 46% (n=101) of those in work had certified time-off for sciatica. Mean pain intensity was 7.2 (2.0) and 6.2 (2.7) for leg and back pain respectively and mean disability (ODI) was 46.5 (18). 60% (n=210) had leg pain for >6 months. Average confidence at baseline (0 to 10) that the ESI would help symptoms was 5.7 (2.4). Of 217 patients reaching 6-week follow-up, mean leg and back pain intensity is 5.0 (2.8) and 4.9 (2.9) respectively and ODI 36.6 (20.4), with 57% reporting improvement (completely recovered/much better/better). Follow-up data collection at 6, 12 and 24-weeks post-ESI is ongoing. Conclusion. Interim analysis shows only just over half of patients are reporting improvement at 6 weeks post ESI. The POiSE cohort study will help better identify the patients with sciatica who are most likely to benefit from this treatment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background and purpose of the study. Patients with sciatica experience high levels of disability and poor outcomes and treatment has demonstrated, at best, only modest success. To be effective, management strategies must be informed by patients' perceptions about ‘what matters’ about experiencing this condition. The aim of this paper is to explore the lived experience of sciatica and to consider the implications for clinical practice. Methods and results. In this qualitative study, based on the principles of interpretative phenomenological analysis, 14 participants with a clinical presentation of sciatica of likely nerve root origin were purposively recruited from an NHS, Primary Care Musculoskeletal Service in the UK. Individual, semi-structured interviews were used to collect data, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were managed using a framework approach and analysed thematically. Sciatica was experienced as a protracted journey of acute exacerbations of uncontrolled and incapacitating symptoms that were overwhelming and difficult to make sense of. Adversely affecting almost all aspects of life, participants struggled to maintain their physical, functional and financial independence; their important relationships; social networks and the roles and activities that provided joy and purpose. The impact of sciatica was a ‘life on hold’; an altered sense of self and an uncertain future. For three participants, the experience of sciatica was sufficiently distressing for them to contemplate suicide. Conclusions. This paper reveals the severity and devastating impact of the symptoms and effects of sciatica. Important practice and research implications have been identified regarding managing symptoms and the need to align treatment strategies with patients' complex and multifaceted needs. Conflicts of interest: None. Funding acknowledgements: This study was funded by an NIHR Masters in Clinical Research Fellowship awarded to CR. LR is funded, in part, by an NIHR Senior Clinical Lecturer award (Round 3)

Background. Clinical guidelines recommend epidural steroid injection (ESI) as a treatment option for severe disc-related sciatica, but there is considerable uncertainty about its effectiveness. Currently, we know very little about factors that might be associated with good or poor outcomes from ESI. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence investigating prognostic factors associated with outcomes following ESI for patients with imaging confirmed disc-related sciatica. Methods. The search strategy involved the electronic databases Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and reference lists of eligible studies. Selected papers were quality appraised independently by two reviewers using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Between study heterogeneity precluded statistical pooling of results. Results. 2726 citations were identified; 11 studies were eligible. Overall study quality was low with all judged to have moderate or high risk of bias. Forty-five prognostic factors were identified but were measured inconsistently. The most commonly assessed prognostic factors were related to pain and function (n=7 studies), imaging features (n=6 studies), health and lifestyle (n=5 studies), patient demographics (n=4 studies) and clinical assessment findings (n=4 studies). No prognostic factor was found to be consistently associated with outcomes following ESI. Most studies found no association or results that conflicted with other studies. Conclusions. There is little, and low quality, evidence to guide practice in terms of factors that predict outcomes in patients following ESI for disc-related sciatica. The results can help inform some of the decisions about potential prognostic factors that should be assessed in future well-designed prospective cohort studies. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Background. Guidelines recommend epidural steroid injections (ESI) for treating severe disc-related sciatica based on trial data showing modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance. Despite their widespread use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica to include in data collection in a future cohort study. Methods. A list of potential predictors of outcome following ESI was generated from existing literature and a consensus meeting with seven experts. Items were subsequently presented in a two-round on-line modified Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are agreed as potential predictors of outcome from ESI (consensus defined as 70% agreement with ranking of remaining items). Results. An initial list of 53 items was generated and 90 experts were invited from seven countries to participate in the on-line Delphi study. Response rates were 48% (n=44) and 73% (n=33) for round 1 and 2 respectively. Twenty-eight additional items suggested by participants in round 1 were included in round 2. Of the 81 items, 14 reached consensus; across domains of medication use, previous surgery, pain intensity, psychosocial factors, imaging findings and type of injection. Highest ranked of remaining items included work-related and clinical assessment items. Conclusion. Based on expert consensus, items that can be routinely collected in clinical practice were identified as potential predictors of outcomes following ESI. These will be tested in a future multicentre cohort study. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: This study is supported by Health Education England and the National Institute for Health Research (HEE/ NIHR ICA Programme Clinical Lectureship, Dr Siobhan Stynes, NIHR300441). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care

Purposes of study and background. The study aim is to evaluate the efficacy of dynamic MRI scanning in identifying radiological causes of positional sciatica over a 5-year period. Summary of methods used and the results. We describe the results of a prospective series of patients who completed open MRI scanning, indicated for lower back pain and positional sciatica. 40 open MRI scans were requested between March 2012 and March 2017. 31 patients were intolerant to conventional MRI Scanning due to either claustrophobia or the inability to lie flat. 9 patients were identified as having positional sciatica. All patients completed the Oswestry Disability Index as part of their clinical assessment. The MRI images and radiology report were reviewed to identify surgically relevant causes. Dynamic foraminal narrowing and a progressive disc protrusion were identified in 2 patients who presented with positional sciatica. 23% of patients who were scanned had positional sciatica. 5% of patients indicated for open MRI scanning demonstrated surgically relevant changes on dynamic MRI scanning. 22% of those with positional sciatica demonstrated surgically relevant pathology on dynamic scanning. Conclusion. The total number of patients having indications for open MRI scans over a 5- year period is low. Dynamic MRI scanning is effective in identifying surgically relevant causes in those patients presenting with positional sciatica. Conflicts of Interest: None. Sources of funding: None

Purpose of the study. To investigate the feasibility of undertaking a definitive Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) to determine the effectiveness of early physiotherapy for sciatica. Methods. Patients over 18 presenting to their G.P with sciatica were eligible to participate in the study, those without a clear understanding of English or had co-morbidities preventing rehabilitation were ineligible. Process and patient reported outcomes including self-rated disability, pain and general health, were collected at baseline, 6,12 and 26 weeks post randomisation. Participants were randomised into either early physiotherapy, receiving treatment within 2 weeks after randomisation or usual care with physiotherapy commencing 6 weeks post randomisation. Both groups received up to 6 treatment sessions of a patient-centred, goal orientated physiotherapy programme specific to their needs. Results. 80 participants were recruited in 10 G.P practices over 34 weeks and randomised to either early physiotherapy (n= 42) or usual care (n=38). Follow-up rates at 26 weeks were 36 (86%) in the early intervention physiotherapy group and 32 (84%) in the usual care. All feasibility objectives were achieved. The mean area under the curve for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) over the 26 weeks was and 16.0 (SD 14.0) in the early physiotherapy group and 16.6 (SD 11.4) in the usual care group. A difference of −0.6 (95% CI: −0.68 to 5.6) in favour of the intervention group. Conclusion. The results of the study suggest a full RCT is feasible and will provide evidence as to the optimal timing of physiotherapy for patients with sciatica. No conflicts of interest for any authors. Sources of funding: MR is the recipient of a HEE/NIHR Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship, which funded the study

Background. Recruitment to time and target in clinical trials is a key challenge requiring careful estimation of numbers of potential participants. The SCOPiC trial ((HTA 12/201/09) (ISRCTN75449581)) is investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica in primary care. Here, we describe the approaches followed to achieve recruitment of our required sample size (n=470), the challenges encountered and required adaptations. Methods. We used recruitment data from the SCOPiC trial and its internal pilot, to show the differences between estimated and actual numbers of patients from consultation to participation in the trial. Patients were consented to the trial if they had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica (with at least 70% confidence) and met the trial eligibility criteria. Results. Initial recruitment estimates suggested we needed a source population of 146,000 adults registered at approximately 30 GP practices, and a monthly trial recruitment target of 22 patients per month over 22 months. The internal pilot trial phase resulted in revisions of these estimates to 256,000 and 42 GP practices. To date, 1,623 patients have been screened for eligibility and 450 randomised. The main reason for ineligibility is low confidence in the diagnosis of sciatica. Conclusion. Our experience highlights the challenge of recruitment to clinical trials of sciatica, particularly in terms of case definition, and the need for careful planning and an internal pilot phase prior to a main trial. We believe our experience will be helpful to others conducting trials with sciatica patients. No conflicts of interest. Funding. NEF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. KK is supported through a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award. The SCOPiC trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health

Purpose of the study. The aims of the study were to explore the experiences of sciatica sufferers, their perceptions of physiotherapy and healthcare service provision. Methods. This was the qualitative element of a mixed methods study investigating the feasibility of early physiotherapy for sciatica. Participants in the pilot trial consented to take part in semi-structured interviews before and after they had undertaken an individualised physiotherapy programme. Data from the interviews was examined line by line using a thematic analysis approach with key themes and sub-themes emerging. Results. Thirty-three participants were recruited and a total of 45 interviews being carried out. 7 central themes and 17 sub-themes were generated from thematic analysis. The first-line treatment administered to all participants by their G.P was a combination of analgesia. The drugs used included paracetamol, ibuprofen, nefopam, diclofenac, tramadol, morphine, diazepam and baclofen. Neuropathic pain modulating medication such as amitriptyline, gabapentin or pregabalin was widely used. Participants reported that medication simply didn't provide sufficient pain relief at a dose where side-effects were acceptable. Twenty-four interviewees described the negative side-effects of the drugs including nausea, dizziness, confusion, constipation, drowsiness, impotence and bloating. Furthermore, participants were concerned about their ability to carry out normal day to day tasks such as childcare, work and driving due to the side-effects of the drugs. Conclusion. Sciatica can be all encompassing, with severe pain and disability. A range of medication is commonly used for pain relief. The results from this study suggest that the drugs don't provide significant pain relief without deleterious side-effects in some patients. No conflicts of interest for any authors. Sources of funding: MR is the recipient of a HEE/NIHR Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship which funded the study

Background and purpose of the study. Uncertainty remains regarding the optimal method of diagnosing sciatica. Clinical guidelines currently recommend that investigations be used only when they are likely to change management. In clinical practice, considerable variation can occur between patient and clinician, regarding the perceived importance of investigations such as MRI scans. The aim of this study was to explore patients' experiences of investigations and to consider the impact of concordance between clinical presentation and investigation findings. Methods and results. In this qualitative study, based on the principles of interpretative phenomenological analysis, 14 participants with a clinical presentation of sciatica of likely nerve root origin, who had recently undergone investigations, were purposively recruited from an NHS, Primary Care Musculoskeletal Service in the UK. Individual, semi-structured interviews were used to collect data, which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were managed using a framework approach and analysed thematically. Although patients reported wanting investigations to understand the cause of symptoms and inform management, access to them was difficult and protracted. When investigations revealed potentially relevant findings, patients experienced relief, validation, empowerment and decisive decision-making. Disappointment emerged, however, regarding treatment waiting times and options, and long-term prognosis. When investigations failed to identify relevant findings, patients were unable to make sense of their symptoms, move forward in their management or relinquish their search to identify the cause. Conclusion. This study provides the first reported in-depth interpretation of patients' experience of undergoing investigations for sciatica. Important policy and practice implications have been identified for investigation referral criteria; shared-decision-making; information sharing; aligning expectations and managing disappointment. No conflicts of interest. This study was funded by an NIHR Masters in Clinical Research Fellowship awarded to CR. LR is funded, in part, by an NIHR Senior Clinical Lecturer award (Round 3)

Background. NICE guidance suggests that caudal epidural injections of steroid and local anaesthetic may be considered for acute and severe sciatica, however studies have demonstrated limited long-term benefit and impact on future surgery. This study aimed to investigate the use of caudal epidural injections in a district general hospital setting and the rate of subsequent operation. Methods. All patients undergoing caudal epidural injection between 1. st. January and 30. th. June 2015 were included. Records were reviewed to obtain diagnosis, pre- and post-epidural clinical findings, prior interventions, and subsequent operations. Results. A total of 141 patients underwent a caudal epidural, with a median age of 63 (18 – 90). 37 patients went on to surgical intervention within 3 years, resulting in a conversion rate of 26.1%. Amongst those not requiring surgery, 59 (56.19%) had disc herniation, 42 (40%) stenosis, 4 spondylolisthesis, and 1 a facet cyst. Pre-operatively 63.81% reported back pain and 93.33% sciatica. 39.05% of patients had sensorimotor changes. Post-operatively, 27.62% reported an improvement in their back pain, compared to 62.86% reporting improved leg pain. 36.59% of those with sensorimotor changes reported improvement. 32 later had a further caudal epidural or foraminal block, and 25 had facet and sacroiliac joint injections. Amongst those requiring surgery, 21 (56.76%) had disc herniation, 15 (40.54%) stenosis, and 1 spondylolisthesis (2.7%). Conclusion. In our series, approximately three quarters of patients undergoing caudal epidural injection did not subsequently require surgery. Lumbosacral radicular symptoms improved in two thirds, however the epidural was less effective at treating back pain. No conflicts of interest. No funding obtained

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. Results. Across all groups, clinicians identified potential added value in ‘fast-tracking’ some sciatica patients in terms of patient reassurance based on MRI scan findings. Whilst spinal physiotherapists felt that most ‘fast track’ patients were appropriate, some spinal physiotherapists and GPs had concerns that patients with symptom durations of less than 6 weeks might be inappropriately fast-tracked since their symptoms may still resolve without the need for invasive treatments. Spinal surgeons felt it was acceptable for patients with short symptom durations to be ‘fast-tracked’, but to provide early reassurance rather than direct treatment. Conclusion. Whilst clinicians saw added value in a group of sciatica patients being ‘fast-tracked’ to specialist opinion, there was some reservation about moving away from the usual stepped care, ‘wait and see’ approach for patients with short symptom duration. Conflicts of interest statement. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment. Funding support is also received from an NIHR Research Professorship for Nadine Foster (NIHR-RP-011-015), who is an NIHR Senior Investigator, and a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lecturer award for Kika Konstantinou. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the HTA programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health and Social Care. The study was approved by the NRES Committee West Midlands – Solihull, 17/03/2015, ref: 15/WM/0078. Trial registration: ISRCTN75449581

The optimum timing of lumbar discectomy for sciatica is imprecise. We have investigated a number of prognostic factors in relation to the outcome of radiculopathy after lumbar discectomy. We recruited 113 consecutive patients of whom 103 (91%) were followed up at one year. We found a significant association between the duration of radiculopathy and the changes in the Oswestry Disability Index score (p = 0.005) and the low back outcome score (p = 0.03). Improvement in pain was independent of all variables. Patients with an uncontained herniated disc had a shorter duration of symptoms and a better functional outcome than those with a contained herniation. Our study suggests that patients with sciatica for more than 12 months have a less favourable outcome. We detected no variation in the results for patients operated on in whom the duration of sciatica was less than 12 months

Aims

Patients with cauda equina syndrome (CES) require emergency imaging and surgical decompression. The severity and type of symptoms may influence the timing of imaging and surgery, and help predict the patient’s prognosis. Categories of CES attempt to group patients for management and prognostication purposes. We aimed in this study to assess the inter-rater reliability of dividing patients with CES into categories to assess whether they can be reliably applied in clinical practice and in research.

Purposes of the study and background. The objective of this overview was to evaluate the available evidence from systematic reviews on the effectiveness of surgical interventions for sciatica due to disc herniation. The last search was conducted in 2011. Since then new reviews have been published or existing reviews have been updated. Summary of the methods used and results. A comprehensive search was performed in multiple databases including Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR), Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Pubmed. Included are Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews on sciatica due to disc herniation published in peer-reviewed journals. We evaluated surgery versus conservative care and different surgical techniques compared to one another. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews was evaluated using AMSTAR by two independent reviewers. Nine, mostly high quality, systematic reviews on surgical interventions for disc herniation were included. Four reviews compared surgery with conservative treatment and concluded consistently that surgery has only short term benefits while the long term results showed no difference in effect. Four reviews compared open discectomy with micro(endo)scopic discectomy and found no significant and/or clinically relevant differences. The quality of evidence on alternative minimal invasive techniques (laser discectomy, automated percutaneous discectomy, and nucleoplasty or coblation) is consistently low in four recent reviews. Conclusion. Although the quality of the reviews was quite acceptable, the quality of the included studies was mostly poor. The choice between surgical techniques and surgery and conservative intervention should be based on surgeon and patient preferences, among other things

Purpose and background. Research on people's own experiences of living with sciatica is limited and this study aims to contribute to a better understanding of the impact of sciatica and its treatment. Methods. Longitudinal study based on in-depth interviews at baseline, six and twelve months follow-up. Thirty seven people were interviewed (15 men, 22 women) using a topic guide that allowed for detailed exploration of their story. All interviews were digitally recorded, fully transcribed, imported in the NVivo data management system and analysed thematically using the constant comparative method. Results. Leg pain was considered to be difficult to cope with as painkillers were limited in effectiveness, and many people were hampered in activities of daily living, work and leisure. The need for a clear diagnosis, prognosis, assessment of treatment options and potential outcomes was considered important. Comparing the patient's own story with the clinical explanation was seen to contribute to more effective therapeutic relationships. Conclusion. Acknowledging people's own accounts of sciatica is essential for achieving effective clinical processes and outcomes. The recognition of the specifically invasive nature of leg pain is crucial to a shared understanding of problems in daily life and in searching for solutions. Appropriate diagnosis and explanation and adequate pain relief seemed most important to the patients suffering with sciatica

Funding. This report presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09). NEF is a Senior NIHR Investigator and was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). KK was supported by a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lectureship award. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the Health Technology Assessment programme or the Department of Health. Background and Purpose. Stratified care (SC) has previously been found to be a cost-effective approach for primary care LBP patients. The SCOPiC trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a modified SC model combining prognostic and clinical characteristics to allocate sciatica patients into one of three groups (with matched care pathways) versus non-stratified, usual care (UC). Methods. Cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12-months. Resource use and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) data were obtained from postal questionnaires, mean costs and QALYs were calculated for each trial arm along with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The base case analysis was by intention-to-treat, and performed from NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective. Sensitivity analyses included healthcare provider and societal perspectives, as well as analyses for each of the three patient groups. Results. 476 patients were randomised (238 per arm). Mean NHS/PSS costs (SD) recorded were £663.58 for SC and £617.37 for UC. Mean QALYs (SD) were 0.659 (0.173) for SC and 0.671 (0.168) for UC; the adjusted mean difference in QALYs was −0.011 (−0.035, 0.013). In this base-case analysis, the chance of SC being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY was only 19%. Similarly, low probabilities of effectiveness were observed in all sensitivity analyses. The chance of SC being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 ranged from 18% to 52% for each of the three patient groups. Conclusions. Overall, the SC model that we tested for sciatica in primary care was not a cost-effective option compared to usual, non-stratified care. No sources of funding. No conflicts of interest

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. Results. Primary outcome data were obtained from 89.3% (88.3% SC, 90.3% UC). Survival analysis showed a small but not statistically significant difference in time to resolution of symptoms (SC reached resolution 2 weeks earlier than UC; HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.89, 1.46)). There were no significant between-arm differences in secondary outcomes. Conclusion. The SC model, tested in this trial was not more effective than UC. On average, patients in both arms made similar good improvements over time, on most outcomes. No conflicts of interest. Funding: This report presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR HTA project number 12/201/09). NEF is a Senior NIHR Investigator and was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). KK was supported by a HEFCE Senior Clinical Lectureship award. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the Health Technology Assessment programme or the Department of Health

Objectives. To investigate the views and experiences of patients with sciatica who have undergone a bespoke physiotherapy programme whilst awaiting primary lumbar microdiscectomy. Methods. This is a qualitative study, nested within a preliminary RCT. All patients were listed for primary, single-level microdiscectomy surgery. In the experimental arm of the study 29 patients had up to 6 sessions of physiotherapy over an 8 week period while on the waiting list for lumbar microdiscectomy. After surgery, they were invited to participate in an in-depth semi-structured interview. At this time patients had either decided not to have the surgery, or had undergone surgery. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. Two researchers were involved in the analysis of the data to ensure the interpretation of the findings was robust, credible and trustworhy. Results:. 21 patients were interviewed with 24 patients in the sample undergoing surgery following the physiotherapy. The physiotherapy was found to be of value with patients appreciating exercises to reduce pain and discomfort, techniques for improving properly, interventions to improve gait and posture, hands-on therapy and gym work through an individually tailored treatment approach. Another strong theme was that of perceived delays for scanning and entry into secondary care. Conclusion:. The nested qualitative study provides further evidence as to the experiences and difficulties faced by patients with sciatica. An emergent theme was the difficulty in accessing what patients perceived to be appropriate care. The bespoke, patient-orientated approach was well received by both clinicians and patients and provides opportunities for its wider introduction. This abstract presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant

Purpose. To describe the frequency of different patterns of pain response and their association with outcomes (prognosis) and MRI findings in patients experiencing sciatica. Methods. 176 consecutive consenting patients with radicular pain underwent an MRI and a clinical assessment at baseline using a standardized procedure of repeated lumbar movements and positioning guided. Based on their pain response, patients were divided into five groups: abolition centralization, reduction centralization, unstable centralization, peripheralization, and no effect on pain. Results. Overall, 84.8 % of patients reported experiencing one of the three forms of centralization, 7.3 % reported peripheralization and 7.9 % reported “No effect”. The median reduction in RMQ scores across all three centralization groups was 9.5 points at 3-months and 12.0 points at 12-months. The peripheralization group improved by a similar amount (7.0 and 14.0 respectively). In contrast, the ‘no effect’ group improved by 3.0 at both time points and this was significantly different (p<0.001) from the other groups. These results were mimicked in relation to leg pain. In addition, there was no association between the reported pain responses (centralization, peripheralization or no effect) and the type of disc lesion observed on MRI. Conclusion. In patients with sciatica, centralization was common. Centralization and peripheralization at baseline were equally associated with improvement in activity limitation and leg pain over time. As there was no association between MRI findings and the pain response to movement, these results do not support the belief that centralization only occurs if the annulus is intact and the intra-discal hydrostatic mechanism is functional