↓ Skip to main content

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway compared to usual care for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: study protocol for a UK randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway compared to usual care for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: study protocol for a UK randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2516-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vikki Wylde, Wendy Bertram, Andrew D. Beswick, Ashley W. Blom, Julie Bruce, Amanda Burston, Jane Dennis, Kirsty Garfield, Nicholas Howells, Athene Lane, Candy McCabe, Andrew J. Moore, Sian Noble, Tim J. Peters, Andrew Price, Emily Sanderson, Andrew D. Toms, David A. Walsh, Simon White, Rachael Gooberman-Hill

Abstract

Approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement. There is little evidence for effective interventions for the management of this pain, and current healthcare provision is patchy and inconsistent. Given the complexity of this condition, multimodal and individualised interventions matched to pain characteristics are needed. We have undertaken a comprehensive programme of work to develop a care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement. This protocol describes the design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention care pathway compared with usual care. This is a pragmatic two-armed, open, multi-centred randomised controlled trial conducted within secondary care in the UK. Patients will be screened at 2 months after total knee replacement and 381 patients with chronic pain at 3 months postoperatively will be recruited. Recruitment processes will be optimised through qualitative research during a 6-month internal pilot phase. Patients are randomised using a 2:1 intervention:control allocation ratio. All participants receive usual care as provided by their hospital. The intervention comprises an assessment clinic appointment at 3 months postoperatively with an Extended Scope Practitioner and up to six telephone follow-up calls over 12 months. In the assessment clinic, a standardised protocol is followed to identify potential underlying causes for the chronic pain and enable appropriate onward referrals to existing services for targeted and individualised treatment. Outcomes are assessed by questionnaires at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The co-primary outcomes are pain severity and pain interference assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes relate to resource use, function, neuropathic pain, mental well-being, use of pain medications, satisfaction with pain relief, pain frequency, capability, health-related quality of life and bodily pain. After trial completion, up to 30 patients in the intervention group will be interviewed about their experiences of the care pathway. If shown to be clinically and cost-effective, this care pathway intervention could improve the management of chronic pain after total knee replacement. ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN92545361 ), prospectively registered on 30 August 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 13%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 23 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 19%
Psychology 7 8%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 25 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,154,560
of 14,526,769 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#893
of 3,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,824
of 274,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,526,769 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them