Developing a core outcome set for sciatica: a scoping review of outcome measures
Katie Ridsdale1, Jonathan Woodward2, Ifsah Asad3
1Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK k.ridsdale@sheffield.ac.uk.
Objectives:
Outcome 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.
Design:
Scoping 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.
Results:
187 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.
Conclusions:
This 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.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
01:19Standards of Care II
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:22Standards of Care I
01:25Analgesia and Pain Management
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...