Skip to main content

Table 2 Baseline characteristics of sciatica patients by referral status (to spinal specialist services) and unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios of association with referral

From: Subgrouping patients with sciatica in primary care for matched care pathways: development of a subgrouping algorithm

Ā 

Not referred (nā€‰=ā€‰372)

Referred (nā€‰=ā€‰57)

Unadjusteda

OR (95% CI)

Adjustedb

OR (95% CI)

Block 1

ā€ƒImpaired performance at work or cannot do jobs around the house: Yes*, n (%)

200 (53.8)

43 (75.4)

2.64 (1.40, 4.99)

2.17 (1.13, 4.17)

Block 2

ā€ƒIntensity of usual back pain in the last 2ā€‰weeks, mean (SD)

7.0 (2.2)

7.4 (2.1)

1.10 (0.96, 1.26)

Ā 

ā€ƒIntensity of usual leg pain in the last 2ā€‰weeks, mean (SD)

6.7 (2.3)

8.0 (1.8)

1.32 (1.14, 1.53)

Ā 

ā€ƒIntensity of current back pain, mean (SD)

5.4 (2.7)

6.3 (2.6)

1.13 (1.02, 1.27)

Ā 

ā€ƒIntensity of current leg pain, mean (SD)

5.5 (2.9)

6.9 (2.5)

1.20 (1.07, 1.34)

1.17 (1.05ā€“1.31)

Sciatica Bothersomeness (0ā€“6): total score, median (IQR)

ā€ƒLeg pain

5 (3, 6)

6 (4, 6)

1.58 (1.22, 2.05)

Ā 

ā€ƒNumbness or tingling in leg, foot or groin (Paraesthesia)

4 (2, 5)

5 (3, 6)

1.25 (1.06, 1.48)

Ā 

ā€ƒWeakness in leg or foot

3 (1, 4)

4 (2, 5)

1.20 (1.04, 1.38)

Ā 

ā€ƒBack or leg pain while sitting

4 (3, 5)

5 (3, 6)

1.34 (1.09, 1.65)

Ā 

ā€ƒSciatica bothersomeness composite score (0ā€“24): mean (SD)

14.6 (5.1)

17.6 (4.5)

1.13 (1.06, 1.21)

Ā 

Block 3

ā€ƒPain self-efficacy (0ā€“60), mean (SD)

34.1 (14.5)

28.0 (15.0)

0.97 (0.95, 0.99)

ā€“

ā€ƒIllness perception (identity), median (IQR)

6 (5, 7)

6 (5, 7)

1.23 (0.96, 1.57)

Ā 

Block 4

ā€ƒWhat is worse: Leg pain is worse, n (%)

206 (55.4)

35 (61.4)

1.28 (0.72, 2.27)

Ā 

ā€ƒTingling/numbness: Yes, n (%)

241 (64.8)

40 (70.2)

1.28 (0.70, 2.34)

Ā 

ā€ƒCough/sneeze positive: Yes, n (%)

97 (26.1)

20 (35.1)

1.53 (0.85, 2.77)

Ā 

Block 5

ā€ƒAbnormal myotomal strength: Yes, n (%)

82 (22.0)

20 (35.1)

1.91 (1.05, 3.47)

Ā 

Reflex, n (%)

ā€ƒNormal

282 (75.8)

41 (71.9)

Ā Ā 

ā€ƒSlightly reduced

28 (7.5)

2 (3.5)

0.49 (0.11, 2.14)

Ā 

ā€ƒAbsent

46 (12.4)

11 (19.3)

1.64 (0.79, 3.43)

Ā 

ā€ƒSignificantly reduced

16 (4.3)

3 (5.3)

1.29 (0.36, 4.62)

Ā 

Sensation (Pin Prick), n (%)

ā€ƒNormal

190 (51.1)

20 (35.1)

Ā Ā 

ā€ƒReduced sensation

142 (38.2)

26 (45.6)

1.74 (0.93, 3.24)

1.59 (0.84ā€“3.00)

ā€ƒLoss of sensation

40 (10.8)

11 (19.3)

2.61 (1.16, 5.88)

2.41 (1.05ā€“5.53)

ā€ƒNeural test: any positive: Yes, n (%)

272 (73.1)

40 (70.2)

0.87 (0.47, 1.60)

Ā 
  1. *Evidence of interference with ability to do work/home activities if >ā€‰6 (NRS 0ā€“10) on single question on work interference or ā€˜yesā€™ response on the RMDQ item
  2. a Univariable association between each variable and referral to secondary care, variables with pā€‰<ā€‰0.05 are bolded
  3. b Multivariable model was fitted in two stages: (1) within each block: block 1 only had one variable; block 2 had 9 variables, however, variables within this block were all highly correlated with each other and could not be included in the same multivariable model, current leg pain was chosen on clinical grounds to be the only variable progressed to multivariable model; block 3 had two variables but one was not significant when adjusted within the block and was dropped; block 4 had 3 variables, none were significant when adjusted for each other within the block; block 5 had 4 variables, only one was significant when adjusted within the block; (2) overall adjusted model comprising all variables significant in the adjusted models within blocks: the following variables were entered in the initial overall multivariable model: impaired performance at work or cannot do jobs around the house, intensity of current leg pain, pain self-efficacy, and sensation. Pain self-efficacy was not significant and was dropped from the final model