Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore if there are differences in the design and/or conduct of studies that have tested the STarTBack treatment approach for the management of low back pain (LBP), potentially explaining differences in study results. DESIGN: A literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from inception to 26 July 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that included (1) participants with LBP and/or leg pain, (2) randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and interrupted time series designs, (3) used the STarTBack Tool to stratify participants into subgroups and (4) studies provided matched treatments according to participants STarTBack score. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the search results and extracted data into the data extraction form. Due to the exploratory nature of this study, results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: 11 studies conducted across 5 countries were included. There were substantial differences in the proportion of participants allocated to the different risk groups; low-risk group (range: 19%-58%), medium risk group (range: 31%-52%) and high-risk group (range: 6%-38%). There were large differences between studies in the implementation of the STarTBack approach. The original STarTBack trial (Hill et al, 2011) had a more explanatory design while in many subsequent studies, the design was more pragmatic/real world. Only the two original studies provided clear evidence that the implementation of the STarTBack tool led to a higher proportion of participants receiving matched treatment. In the other studies, there was no evidence of a difference, or it was unclear. In two studies, a researcher made the decision about which matched treatment participants received based on the STartTback Tool, while in nine studies, this was done by a clinician. Most studies recommended the same matched treatment for each risk group as per the original study except for a small number of studies. Only three studies reported whether the clinician delivering matched treatment followed the recommended treatment as per the tool. There was substantial variability in the training clinicians received. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of important study-level factors (eg, differences in study design, whether clinicians were trained and how the tool was used in each study) in how the STarTBack approach was implemented was unclear. There is some suggestion that key factors may include the individual who implemented the STarTBack tool, whether the recommendations of the tool were followed, the amount of training the clinician delivering the matched treatment received, and whether clinicians actually delivered the matched treatment.