ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol.

ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal... | HRB Open Research dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); const cookieDomain = window.location.hostname; const tld = buildTLD(); function buildTLD() { const domainParts = cookieDomain.split('.'); while (domainParts.length > 2) { domainParts.shift(); } return domainParts.join('.'); } function deleteCookie(cookieName) { if (!cookieName) { return; } const cookiePath = (cookieName.startsWith('retraction_warning_') || cookieName.startsWith('version_warning_')) ? '/articles/' + cookieName : '/'; // Yes, these three slightly different ways to try and remove cookies are necessary document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; domain=' + cookieDomain + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; domain=.' + tld + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; document.cookie = cookieName + '=; path=' + cookiePath + '; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:01 GMT;'; } function deleteGroupCookies(group) { if (!group) { return; } const domainData = OneTrust.GetDomainData(), cookies = domainData.Groups.filter(cookieGroup => cookieGroup.OptanonGroupId === group)[0].Cookies; cookies.forEach(cookie => deleteCookie(cookie.Name)); } function OptanonWrapper() { const cookieConsentGroups = []; for (group of OneTrust.GetDomainData().Groups) { cookieConsentGroups.push(group.OptanonGroupId); } OneTrust.OnConsentChanged(function(e) { const cookieConsentActiveGroups = OnetrustActiveGroups.split(',').filter(activeGroup => activeGroup); cookieConsentGroups.forEach(group => { if (!cookieConsentActiveGroups.includes(group)) { deleteGroupCookies(group); }; }); }); } window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://hrbopenresearch.org/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'HRB'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); Skip to content HRB Open Research file_upload Submit your research search clear search menu close clear Search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Data Guidelines Prepublication Checks Production Process Article Processing Charges Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers National Steering Group Policies Glossary FAQs Contact Blog My Account Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73" }, "headline": "ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and...", "datePublished": "2023-12-06T16:03:48", "dateModified": "2025-01-23T16:10:47", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Fiona Callan" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Louise Keating" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sarah Casserley-Feeney" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Helen P. French" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "HRB Open Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/img/AMP/HRB_image.png", "height": 566, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/img/AMP/HRB_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 127 }, "description": " Background Clinical specialist physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal triage clinics were introduced nationally in Ireland in 2011 to improve patient care and reduce waiting times for secondary care orthopaedics and rheumatology. Evidence has shown them to be effective in reducing waiting lists, however there are currently no data on longitudinal patient outcomes following attendance at these clinics. The primary aim of this prospective, cohort study is to identify predictors of clinical outcome (pain and function) at 12-months post MSK-triage appointment. Secondary aims are to describe the clinical course of patients attending MSK triage clinics and measure self-reported use of healthcare resources up to 12 months post-MSK-triage appointment. This is a prospective cohort study. Methods ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage (ADAPT MSK) will recruit a cohort of 252 adults through musculoskeletal triage clinics across five secondary care sites in Ireland. The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines will be adhered to for future reporting. Adults (≥ 18 years old) attending physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal triage clinics with musculoskeletal pain, who do not require surgical or consultant-led medical care will be considered for participation in this study. Participant demographics, health literacy, healthcare utilisation, and self-report questionnaires on pain, function, musculoskeletal health status, musculoskeletal risk stratification, fear of movement, and psychological distress will be obtained at baseline, with follow-ups at three, six, and 12 months. The primary outcomes are pain intensity and function. Secondary outcomes include musculoskeletal risk stratification status, musculoskeletal health status, healthcare utilisation, and work status. Descriptive statistics will be used to profile the cohort of participants and predictors of outcome will be assessed using multivariable linear regression. Results Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal publication and presentation at national and international conferences. Engagement with a public patient involvement (PPI) panel will explore dissemination strategies for public and service user engagement. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73", "name": "ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic..." } } ] } Home Browse ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Callan F, Keating L, Casserley-Feeney S and French HP. ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13769.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Study Protocol Revised ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] Fiona Callan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6560-2983 1 , Louise Keating https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4747-0491 1 , Sarah Casserley-Feeney 2 , Helen P. French https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0300-4395 1 Fiona Callan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6560-2983 1 , Louise Keating https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4747-0491 1 , Sarah Casserley-Feeney 2 , Helen P. French https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0300-4395 1 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2025 Author details Author details 1 School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland 2 National Musculoskeletal Triage Initiative, National Clinical Programme for Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery (NCPTOS), Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland Fiona Callan Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Louise Keating Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Sarah Casserley-Feeney Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Helen P. French Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background Clinical specialist physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal triage clinics were introduced nationally in Ireland in 2011 to improve patient care and reduce waiting times for secondary care orthopaedics and rheumatology. Evidence has shown them to be effective in reducing waiting lists, however there are currently no data on longitudinal patient outcomes following attendance at these clinics. The primary aim of this prospective, cohort study is to identify predictors of clinical outcome (pain and function) at 12-months post MSK-triage appointment. Secondary aims are to describe the clinical course of patients attending MSK triage clinics and measure self-reported use of healthcare resources up to 12 months post-MSK-triage appointment. This is a prospective cohort study. Methods ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage (ADAPT MSK) will recruit a cohort of 252 adults through musculoskeletal triage clinics across five secondary care sites in Ireland. The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines will be adhered to for future reporting. Adults (≥ 18 years old) attending physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal triage clinics with musculoskeletal pain, who do not require surgical or consultant-led medical care will be considered for participation in this study. Participant demographics, health literacy, healthcare utilisation, and self-report questionnaires on pain, function, musculoskeletal health status, musculoskeletal risk stratification, fear of movement, and psychological distress will be obtained at baseline, with follow-ups at three, six, and 12 months. The primary outcomes are pain intensity and function. Secondary outcomes include musculoskeletal risk stratification status, musculoskeletal health status, healthcare utilisation, and work status. Descriptive statistics will be used to profile the cohort of participants and predictors of outcome will be assessed using multivariable linear regression. Results Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal publication and presentation at national and international conferences. Engagement with a public patient involvement (PPI) panel will explore dissemination strategies for public and service user engagement. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Musculoskeletal triage; physiotherapy; orthopaedic triage, rheumatology triage; predictors of outcome; musculoskeletal pain, healthcare utilisation, cohort study Corresponding Author(s) Fiona Callan ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Fiona Callan Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This work was supported by the Irish Research Council Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship (GOIPG/2021/160). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Callan F et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Callan F, Keating L, Casserley-Feeney S and French HP. ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13769.2 ) First published: 06 Dec 2023, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13769.1 ) Latest published: 23 Jan 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13769.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 In response to reviewer feedback a number of changes have been made to the protocol. We have provided clarity on our sample size calculation. We have revised our primary and secondary aims. We have revised and further developed our statistical analysis plan in line with revised aims. We have further developed the introduction and discussion section. Health literacy has been included in the relevant sections and Table 1. We have addressed grammatical and terminology concerns throughout the manuscript. In response to reviewer feedback a number of changes have been made to the protocol. We have provided clarity on our sample size calculation. We have revised our primary and secondary aims. We have revised and further developed our statistical analysis plan in line with revised aims. We have further developed the introduction and discussion section. Health literacy has been included in the relevant sections and Table 1. We have addressed grammatical and terminology concerns throughout the manuscript. See the authors' detailed response to the review by helen o'leary See the authors' detailed response to the review by Karin Samsson READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain, which includes conditions such as low back pain, neck pain or osteoarthritis is recognised as one of the leading causes of disability worldwide 1 , resulting in increased healthcare expenditure and longer waiting times for orthopaedic and rheumatology outpatient services 2 , 3 . Adult orthopaedic services represent the largest waiting list in Ireland (June 2023) with a total of 64,867. Up to 25% of patients are waiting more than 12 months for orthopaedic (22%) and rheumatology (25%) appointments in secondary care 4 . In 2011, to reduce outpatient Orthopaedic and Rheumatology waiting times in Ireland, the Health Service Executive (HSE) National Clinical Programmes for Trauma and Orthopaedics (NCPTOS), and Rheumatology (NCPR) established the National MSK Triage Initiative, consisting of 24 clinical specialist physiotherapist (CSP) posts in 18 acute Hospital sites nationwide. In these MSK Triage clinics, CSPs triage patients on outpatient orthopaedic and rheumatology waiting lists, who are unlikely to require consultant care, onto appropriate care pathways. In a national audit, over 80% of patients presenting to MSK-triage clinics in Ireland were managed independently by the CSP, with 71% discharged at their initial appointment 5 and 23% referred to physiotherapy 6 . From 2012 to 2018, 125,852 patients on orthopaedic and rheumatology waiting lists were managed through MSK triage services 7 . Access to primary care physiotherapy also presents a barrier to patients, with 56,200 on primary care waiting lists and 22% (12,502) waiting greater than one year to access primary care physiotherapy services in 2022 8 . Longer waiting times to access physiotherapy can negatively affect patients’ quality of life, psychological wellbeing, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes and economics 3 , 9 , 10 . Several predictors of pain and functional outcomes in MSK conditions across primary and community care settings have previously been identified, including baseline function, pain intensity, mental well-being, co-morbidities, age, body mass index (BMI), duration of symptoms, work status, education level 11 , health literacy 12 , and altered pain processing 13 ; which can also predict non-response to physiotherapy 14 . Recently, MSK core outcome sets, and prognostic stratification tools (such as the Subgroups for Targeted Treatment Back (STarT Back) and Subgroups for Targeted Treatment MSK (STarT MSK)), have been developed, based on established prognostic factors 11 , 15 , and validated to identify earlier, those at risk of developing persistent MSK pain 16 , 17 . Whilst the National MSK Triage Initiative has been successful in reducing acute hospital outpatient orthopaedic and rheumatology waiting lists, the high discharge rate of 71% at initial appointment 5 warrants further examination to explore the patient journey and potential reasons why patients are not referred to the right service at the right time, in line with the Irish government health reform plan (Sláintecare) 18 . It is possible that suboptimal access to primary care services, may be influencing referrer behaviour and decision making. Research to date has shown that MSK triage is an effective waiting list initiative with good service user and healthcare professional satisfaction 5 , 7 , 19 – 22 . However, currently, patient outcomes, prognostic stratification, and predictors of outcome up to 1-year later have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics, who do not require consultant-led orthopaedic or rheumatology care, in Ireland or internationally. Therefore, we wanted to explore the cohort of patients attending secondary care MSK triage who do not require surgical or medical input from the orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatologist to better understand their healthcare journey (healthcare utilisation), clinical outcomes (pain and function) and predictors of clinical outcome. Aims The primary aim of this prospective, cohort study is to identify predictors of clinical outcome (pain and function) at 12-months post MSK-triage appointment. Secondary aims are to: 1. Describe the clinical course of patients attending MSK triage clinics, on the outcomes of pain intensity, function, work status and MSK health status, at 3 months (short-term), 6 months (medium-term) and 12 months (long-term). 2. Measure self-reported use of healthcare resources over the 12-month follow-up period post-MSK-triage appointment. Methods Study design ADAPT MSK is a prospective, observational, cohort study. The STROBE standardised reporting guidelines will be used to guide the reporting of this study 23 . Adults with MSK pain attending CSP-led MSK triage clinics will be recruited from five sites across Ireland. Baseline assessment will consist of baseline demographics, work status, healthcare utilisation and self-report questionnaires on pain, function, MSK health status, fear of movement, anxiety and depression and baseline clinical factors (e.g. number of MSK pain sites, co-morbidities and health literacy) ( Table 1 ). Follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 months will involve repeat measurement of work status, healthcare utilisation and self-report questionnaires. Table 1. Overview of primary and secondary outcomes, predictor variables, and time of assessment. Variables Outcome Measure Method Baseline 3 month 6 month 12 month Primary Outcomes Pain Function Numerical pain rating scale Patient-specific functional scale (PSFS) RC RC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Secondary Outcomes Work status Work classification Work absence Work absence duration MT/T ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ MSK Health Status Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) STarT MSK RC ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Healthcare Utilisation Modified MOSAICS Questionnaire MT/T ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Predictor Variables Demographics Age Sex Education level MT/T ✓ ✓ ✓ Co-Morbidities NICE multi-morbidity index MT/T ✓ Pain Site Total number of MSK pain sites (number/11 on body chart) MT/T ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Previous Surgery Self-reported previous surgery MT/T ✓ Previous Physiotherapy Self-reported previous physiotherapy MT/T ✓ Symptom Duration Self-reported duration of symptoms MT/T ✓ Health Literacy Single item health literacy screener (SILS) ✓ Employment Work classification MT/T ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Fear of Movement Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11) RC ✓ Anxiety and Depression Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) RC ✓ Optional Physical Examination (Two Recruitment Sites) Pain Phenotype Quantitative Sensory Testing • Pressure pain threshold • Dynamic mechanical allodynia • Heat pain threshold • Temporal summation Clinical Neurological Exam Physical ✔ ✔ Grip Strength Hand-held dynamometer Physical ✔ MSK, Musculoskeletal; MT/T, Microsoft Teams/Telephone; RC, RedCap Ethics Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Research Ethics Committees in Beaumont Hospital (Ref: 22/34), Tallaght University Hospital (Ref: 2418), Merlin Park Hospital (Ref: C.A. 2870), Midlands Regional Hospital Tullamore (Ref: RRECB1022FC) and St Vincent’s University Hospital (Ref: RS23-010). Written informed consent will be obtained from eligible participants prior to study recruitment, in line with the Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 36(2)) 24 . Setting This study will be based in MSK Triage clinics across five urban and regional secondary care sites in Ireland. These clinics are run by CSPs with more than five years clinical experience and the majority achieving a postgraduate MSc or PhD degree, in the field of MSK physiotherapy 5 . They provide expert assessment, diagnosis and education to patients and identify the most appropriate management pathway for patients with MSK disorders. The typical journey for patients attending these clinics ( Figure 1 ) involves an initial referral from the patient’s GP to secondary care orthopaedics or rheumatology. The consultant in secondary care then triages this referral to the MSK triage clinic or the consultant-led clinic. Patients deemed unlikely to require orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatology consultant care are triaged to these MSK triage clinics, which aims to improve service efficiency by reducing secondary care waiting lists and directing patients towards the appropriate service for their needs 7 . Figure 1. Screening process for pain classification based on IASP criteria for nociplastic pain 25 and NeuPSIG grading system for Neuropathic pain 26 . Participants A consecutive sample of patients presenting to orthopaedic and rheumatology MSK-triage clinics with MSK pain will be recruited. Participants will be eligible if they are aged 18 years or over, are triaged for non-consultant care at one of the five participating MSK triage services across Ireland and have sufficient English language proficiency for the completion of self-reported questionnaires. Patients will be ineligible to participate if they’ve been triaged by the CSP for orthopaedic surgical or rheumatologist assessment, are unable to communicate in English (written and spoken word), along with those who present with clinical indicators of suspected ‘red flag’ pathology (e.g. recent trauma with significant injury; acute, red, hot, or swollen joints; suspected fracture; joint infection; cancer) 27 ; or a diagnosed systemic inflammatory MSK condition (such as rheumatoid arthritis) or a diagnosis of dementia or terminal illness. Sample size The estimated sample size is based on the primary study aim ‘to identify predictors of clinical outcome (pain and function) at 12-months post MSK-triage appointment’. Sample size is determined based on including 18 predictor variables in univariate analysis and with 10 events required per predictor variable 28 , a sample of 180 participants is required. To allow for a 40% drop-out at the 12-month follow-up, an additional 72 participants were added, resulting in a final sample size estimate of 252 participants. Recruitment and data collection The MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility following their MSK triage appointment. If eligible, they will provide a participant information leaflet, briefly explain the aims of the study, and obtain written consent to be contacted by the primary investigator (FC). This allows the primary investigator to contact prospective participants to answer any questions about the study and if interested in participating, obtain informed written or electronic consent. Once recruited, each participant will undergo a baseline assessment with the primary investigator, capturing participant demographics and healthcare utilisation, via Microsoft Teams or telephone, depending on participant preference. Thereafter, participants will complete a number of self-report questionnaires based on established prognostic factors i.e., baseline function, pain intensity, mental wellbeing, symptom duration, fear avoidance/catastrophising, quality of life/self-efficacy, widespread pain, age, co-morbidities, work absence duration, and education level 15 , 29 , 30 . This data will be collected through Research Electronic Data capture (REDCap) software 31 , 32 , hosted at RCSI, on their personal device, or via posted paper questionnaires, to facilitate participants with limited information technology skills. Demographic information will include participant gender, age, level of education, presenting MSK complaint, duration of symptoms, number of MSK pain sites, previous physiotherapy/surgery for presenting complaint, and work status (work absence, work classification and work absence duration). Co-morbidities will be identified from a list of 12 comorbid conditions, informed by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) indicator for multi-morbidity in primary care 33 . Health literacy will be explored using the single-item literacy screener 34 . Healthcare utilisation will be recorded using a modified version of the Managing of OSteoArthritis In ConsultationS (MOSAICS) trial questionnaire 35 , which captures advice and information received about their condition, self-management, prescribed medications, aids and appliances, private/public health services (e.g., physiotherapy, GP, nursing, occupational therapy, podiatry), treatments, and investigations. Self-report questionnaires will include the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) 36 , STarT MSK tool 17 , and Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) 37 to assess functional and MSK health status; pain intensity through the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) 38 , 39 ; fear of movement through the 11-item Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia 40 and psychological distress via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS) 41 . All participants recruited in two sites (Beaumont Hospital and Tallaght University Hospital) will be invited to participate in a once-off baseline physical examination, consisting of grip strength examination, neurological exam, and quantitative sensory testing ( Table 1 ). Pain hypersensitivity, measured by quantitative sensory testing, has been shown to be a predictor of worse outcome (pain and disability) at follow-up across multiple MSK conditions (e.g., osteoarthritis, low back pain, whiplash, post-operative pain) and different body sites (e.g., hip, knee, low back, shoulder and neck) 13 . Quantitative sensory testing uses standardised testing protocols of somatosensory nerve function, to investigate potential underlying pain mechanisms 42 , 43 . The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) task force clinical criteria and grading system for nociplastic pain involves a stepwise approach to differentiate between predominant nociceptive, neuropathic or nociplastic pain 25 , which, in conjunction with the NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic assessment 26 will be used to categorise participants’ dominant pain phenotype ( Figure 1 ). A quantitative sensory testing protocol including pressure pain thresholds (PPT), dynamic mechanical allodynia, pinprick, temporal summation and cold pain thresholds will be used to assess pain sensitivity in accordance with IASP and NeuPSIG grading systems 25 , 26 . Grip strength is regarded as a biomarker of current health status and has been adopted as a singular indicator of overall body strength 44 – 46 . Grip strength will be assessed isometrically using a calibrated Jamar Plus Digital dynamometer following a standard protocol 47 . Follow-up assessment The primary investigator will contact participants at three, six, and 12 months via Microsoft Teams or telephone to collect healthcare utilisation data and work status (work absence, work classification and work absence duration). Self-report questionnaires (MSK-HQ, STarT MSK, Patient Specific Functional scale, and NPRS) will be sent electronically via REDCap software or via post. Any participant withdrawals or loss to follow-up will be recorded. Outcomes The primary outcomes of interest are pain intensity (NPRS) and function (PSFS). Secondary outcomes are musculoskeletal risk stratification status (STarT MSK), musculoskeletal health (MSK-HQ), healthcare utilisation and work status (work classification, work absence and work absence duration). Statistical analysis Statistical methods will follow the STROBE guidelines 23 and the TRIPOD consensus statement for transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis and/or diagnosis for transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis and/or diagnosis 48 . Descriptive statistics will be used to profile the characteristics of the cohort at baseline, three, six, and 12 months. Multivariable linear regression will be used to identify baseline predictors of pain and function outcomes at the primary timepoint of 12 months following MSK triage appointment. Models will be adjusted for potential confounding factors, checking for interactions and collinearity. The extent of missing data will be assessed and reported, and the mechanism causing the missing data explored. Multiple imputation will be used if the conditions support its use and a sensitivity analysis conducted with complete case data. Variables included in the multivariable regression model will be selected if deemed clinically significant, or if they have a univariable p-value of <0.2. Statistical significance will be inferred when the pvalue is <0.05. Stata 18 statistical software (StataCorp, College Station, Tx, USA) will be used for statistical analyses. Dissemination Findings from this study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journal publication and presentation at national and international conferences. Engagement with a public patient involvement (PPI) panel will explore dissemination strategies for public and service user engagement. Study status Data collection commenced in December 2022, with study completion anticipated in January 2025. Discussion The burden of MSK disorders is increasing exponentially worldwide, resulting in significant pressure on healthcare systems. People with MSK pain who present to their GP in Ireland are faced with difficulties accessing first-line public services, such as primary care physiotherapy and subsequently specialised orthopaedic and rheumatology services. To address secondary care waiting lists and improve service efficiency, the National MSK Triage Initiative, MSK triage clinics, run by CSPs under the clinical governance of Orthopaedic and Rheumatology Consultants commenced in Ireland in 2011, and has demonstrated success as a waiting list initiative. However, high discharge rates and onward referral to primary care physiotherapy following MSK triage suggest that these patients may have been managed more appropriately in primary care if sufficiently resourced. Currently, the patient journey and long-term outcomes following their MSK triage attendance are unknown. This longitudinal cohort study aims to identify predictors of pain and function outcomes up to 1 year following MSK triage attendance; measure individuals’ self-reported use of healthcare resources and explore MSK phenotypes based on identified prognostic factors. Identifying predictors of outcome (pain and function) at 12 months has the potential to inform decision making on the optimal patient pathway and trajectory of care by enabling the identification of those at risk of a poor outcome at 1 year, earlier in their journey. This research has the potential to inform future needs within primary care for those with MSK conditions, as well as the implementation of pathways from primary to secondary care orthopaedics and rheumatology, ensuring that patients receive the ‘right care, at the right place, at the right time’ in line with SláinteCare principles 18 . Data availability No data are associated with this article. Faculty Opinions recommended References 1. GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators:: Global Burden of 369 Diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study 2019. Lancet. 2020; 396 (10258): 1204–1222. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 2. Morris J, Twizeyemariya A, Grimmer K: What is the current evidence of the impact on quality of life whilst waiting for management/treatment of orthopaedic/Musculoskeletal complaints? A systematic scoping review. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27 (9): 2227–2242. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 3. Deslauriers S, Déry J, Proulx K, et al. : Effects of waiting for outpatient physiotherapy services in persons with Musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2021; 43 (5): 611–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. National Treatment Purchase Fund: NTPF outpatient by speciality waiting list June 2023. 29/06/2023. 5. Fennelly O, Blake C, FitzGerald O, et al. : Advanced practice physiotherapy-led triage in Irish orthopaedic and rheumatology services: national data audit. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19 (1): 181. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 6. Casserley-Feeney S: MSK Triage at Outreach: 5th Annual MSK Conference. Royal College of Physicians Ireland, 2022. 7. Brennan A, Ashton J, Callanan E, et al. : Reduction of orthopaedic and rheumatology outpatient waiting lists - the national Musculoskeletal physiotherapy triage initiative. Ir Med J. 2020; 113 (8): 150. Reference Source 8. HSE Planning and Business Information Unit: Primary care physiotherapy waiting list data 2022. 2022. 9. Ojha HA, Wyrsta NJ, Davenport TE, et al. : Timing of physical therapy initiation for nonsurgical management of Musculoskeletal disorders and effects on patient outcomes: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016; 46 (2): 56–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Lewis AK, Harding KE, Snowdon DA, et al. : Reducing wait time from referral to first visit for community outpatient services may contribute to better health outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018; 18 (1): 869. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 11. Burgess R, Mansell G, Bishop A, et al. : Predictors of functional outcome in Musculoskeletal healthcare: an umbrella review. Eur J Pain. 2020; 24 (1): 51–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 12. Mackey LM, Blake C, Casey MB, et al. : The impact of health literacy on health outcomes in individuals with chronic pain: a cross-sectional study. Physiotherapy. 2019; 105 (3): 346–353. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 13. Georgopoulos V, Akin-Akinyosoye K, Zhang W, et al. : Quantitative Sensory Testing and predicting outcomes for Musculoskeletal pain, disability, and negative affect: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2019; 160 (9): 1920–1932. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 14. O'Leary H, Smart KM, Moloney NA, et al. : Pain sensitization associated with nonresponse after physiotherapy in people with knee osteoarthritis. Pain. 2018; 159 (9): 1877–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 15. Burgess R, Lewis M, McRobert C, et al. : Developing a core outcome set for community and primary care Musculoskeletal services: a consensus approach. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2021; 55 : 102415. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 16. Hill JC, Whitehurst DGT, Lewis M, et al. : Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011; 378 (9802): 1560–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 17. Hill JC, Garvin S, Chen Y, et al. : Stratified primary care versus non-stratified care for Musculoskeletal pain: findings from the STarT MSK feasibility and pilot cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2020; 21 (1): 30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 18. Sláintecare: Committee on the future of healthcare: Sláintecare report. 2017. Reference Source 19. Fennelly O, Blake C, Desmeules F, et al. : Patient-reported outcome measures in advanced Musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice: a systematic review. Musculoskeletal Care. 2018; 16 (1): 188–208. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 20. Fennelly O, Blake C, FitzGerald O, et al. : Advanced Musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice in Ireland: a national survey. Musculoskeletal Care. 2018; 16 (4): 425–432. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 21. Fennelly O, Blake C, FitzGerald O, et al. : Advanced Musculoskeletal physiotherapy practice: the patient journey and experience. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020; 45 : 102077. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 22. Mir MO, Blake C, Cunningham C, et al. : Orthopaedic consultant surgeons perceptions of an advanced practice physiotherapy service in paediatrics: a qualitative study. Musculoskeletal Care. 2021; 19 (2): 149–57. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 23. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. : Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007; 335 (7624): 806–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 24. Health Research Board: Data Protection Act 2018 (section 36(2)) (Health Research) Regulations 2018. 2018. Reference Source 25. Kosek E, Clauw D, Nijs J, et al. : Chronic nociplastic pain affecting the Musculoskeletal system: clinical criteria and grading system. Pain. 2021; 162 (11): 2629–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 26. Finnerup NB, Haroutounian S, Kamerman P, et al. : Neuropathic pain: an updated grading system for research and clinical practice. Pain. 2016; 157 (8): 1599–606. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 27. Finucane LM, Downie A, Mercer C, et al. : International framework for red flags for potential serious spinal pathologies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020; 50 (7): 350–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 28. Harrell FE: Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer; 2015. Publisher Full Text 29. Artus M, Campbell P, Mallen CD, et al. : Generic prognostic factors for Musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017; 7 (1): e012901. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 30. Mallen CD, Peat G, Thomas E, et al. : Prognostic factors for Musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2007; 57 (541): 655–61. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text 31. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. : Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42 (2): 377–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 32. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. : The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019; 95 : 103208. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 33. NICE: Indicator for multi-morbidity in primary care. 2019. Reference Source 34. Morris NS, MacLean CD, Chew LD, et al. : The Single Item Literacy Screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Fam Pract. 2006; 7 : 21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 35. Dziedzic KS, Healey EL, Porcheret M, et al. : Implementing core NICE guidelines for osteoarthritis in primary care with a model consultation (MOSAICS): a cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018; 26 (1): 43–53. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 36. Scott IC, McCray G, Lancaster G, et al. : Validation of the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) in primary care patients with Musculoskeletal pain. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020; 50 (5): 813–20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 37. Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, et al. : Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiotherapy Canada. 1995; 47 (4): 258–63. Publisher Full Text 38. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM: What is the maximum number of levels needed in pain intensity measurement? Pain. 1994; 58 (3): 387–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 39. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM, et al. : Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures. Pain. 1999; 83 (2): 157–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 40. Tkachuk GA, Harris CA: Psychometric properties of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11). J Pain. 2012; 13 (10): 970–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 41. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983; 67 (6): 361–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 42. Beales D, Mitchell T, Moloney N, et al. : Masterclass: a pragmatic approach to pain sensitivity in people with Musculoskeletal disorders and implications for clinical management for Musculoskeletal clinicians. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2021; 51 : 102221. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 43. Rolke R, Baron R, Maier C, et al. : Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): standardized protocol and reference values. Pain. 2006; 123 (3): 231–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 44. Bohannon RW, Magasi SR, Bubela DJ, et al. : Grip and knee extension muscle strength reflect a common construct among adults. Muscle Nerve. 2012; 46 (4): 555–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 45. Bohannon RW: Are hand-grip and knee extension strength reflective of a common construct? Percept Mot Skills. 2012; 114 (2): 514–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 46. Ekstrand E, Lexell J, Brogårdh C: Isometric and isokinetic muscle strength in the upper extremity can be reliably measured in persons with chronic stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2015; 47 (8): 706–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 47. Roberts HC, Denison HJ, Martin HJ, et al. : A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised approach. Age Ageing. 2011; 40 (4): 423–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 48. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, et al. : Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. BMC Med. 2015; 13 (1): 1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Dec 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland 2 National Musculoskeletal Triage Initiative, National Clinical Programme for Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery (NCPTOS), Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland Fiona Callan Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Louise Keating Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Sarah Casserley-Feeney Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing Helen P. French Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This work was supported by the Irish Research Council Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholarship (GOIPG/2021/160). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 23 Jan 2025, 6:73 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13769.2 version 1 Published: 06 Dec 2023, 6:73 https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13769.1 Copyright © 2025 Callan F et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics VIEWS $counts.viewCount downloads Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Callan F, Keating L, Casserley-Feeney S and French HP. ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13769.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Anwer S. Reviewer Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15444.r45241 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v2#referee-response-45241 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 25 Feb 2025 Shahnawaz Anwer , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15444.r45241 The protocol of this cohort study primarily aimed to identify predictors of clinical outcome (pain and function) at 12-months post MSK-triage appointment. Secondarily, this study aimed to describe the clinical course of patients attending MSK triage clinics and measure self-reported use of ... Continue reading READ ALL The protocol of this cohort study primarily aimed to identify predictors of clinical outcome (pain and function) at 12-months post MSK-triage appointment. Secondarily, this study aimed to describe the clinical course of patients attending MSK triage clinics and measure self-reported use of healthcare resources up to 12 months post-MSK-triage appointment. The topic is interesting and useful. The study design is well planned and feasible. However, there are some inconsistencies in reporting primary and secondary outcomes. Comments: 1. There are inconsistencies in pain measurements. For example, if pain intensity is assessed through multiple methods, it should be consistently defined and reported to avoid ambiguity. 2. Some outcomes are not included in all follow-up assessments. For example, if certain outcomes such as health literacy, Fear of Movement, Anxiety and Depression, and grip strength are recorded at baseline but not during follow-ups, it may leave gaps in the understanding of how these factors evolve over time. 3. Protocol should identify and report any potential limitations and how to address those limitations. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Rehabilitation, Osteoarthritis, Musculoskeletal Research, Ergonomics, Physical Fatigue I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Anwer S. Reviewer Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15444.r45241 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v2#referee-response-45241 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Dec 2023 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: o'leary h. Reviewer Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37418 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v1#referee-response-37418 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 20 Feb 2024 helen o'leary , University of Limerick, Limerick, County Limerick, Ireland Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37418 Introduction Overall could include more information to expand on the gap this research is addressing/what is known already and why this research is important While the background contains interesting info on the MSK triage initiative ... Continue reading READ ALL Introduction Overall could include more information to expand on the gap this research is addressing/what is known already and why this research is important While the background contains interesting info on the MSK triage initiative it’s not clear from the Introduction why this is an important question? Why is knowing predictors of outcome for this particular patient cohort at 1 year is important? What are the implications of better predicting outcomes? Could it be used for early identification of those at risk of persistent pain and subsequent prioritisation by physiotherapy services? How will this information be used to improve or better current MSK services in Ireland? (some mention of this in Discussion) Also, while the authors refer to previous SRs of predictors of pain and function in MSK conditions, it would be useful to know what type of patient population these relate to (primary care or secondary care). It is stated that MSK triage clinics have not been studied, which is true, however this cohort are essentially very similar to cohort attending secondary care elective othopaedic clinics, what are the main findings from these studies? Methods Study Design- Follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 months- is there a pre-specified primary end-point? How many are estimated to undergo a baseline physical exam? Will there be sufficient data from these two sites to carry out the anticipated data analysis e.g. latent class analysis or multi-variable analysis? Or is this info solely to categorise the pain phenotype? Should make reference to this sub-group in the data analysis section. Pain phenotyping- using IASP criteria and NeuPSIG based on baseline physical exam. Is this different to the Latent Class Analysis to explore underlying pain phenotypes “based on a range of categorical variables”? Clarify this. How soon will the physical exam be after the patient is recruited? What is the anticipated duration of this examination eg. 1 hour? QST- Would have expected in a protocol to see more detail here in order that your testing procedures are reproducible. For example how do you intend to choose anatomical testing sites (related to the primary pain complaint?) What is the order of testing? Instruments- Device you are using for pressure pain algometry, what thermal testing devices?. What is pinprick testing? References (41, 42) provided are for grading systems and not for a QST protocol. Did the authors mean to reference the Rolke et al, 2006 (40)DFNS protocol here? If DFNS Rolke 2006 protocol is what the researchers are using, are the researchers following a modified version of DFNS Rolke 2006 protocol or reproducing exactly. For example, this protocol uses testing of 1 pinprick versus 10 repeated pinpricks and repeats this procedure 5 times, this (55 pinpricks !) may be poorly tolerated by patients, esp hyperalgesic. Have the researcher’s modified this? How? Perhaps Table 1 could include more detail on protocol or how differs to referenced protocol or include as supplementary info Table 1- different QST info compared to text- pinprick omitted, heat pain threshold here instead of cold pain thresholds Clinical Neurological Exam- indicate in Table 1 what will this entail? Is the main purpose to help with pain classification? Patients attending Rheumatology MSK triage clinics are typically multi-site MSK pain, eg. Small joints of the hands plus other several painful area. It is not clear how it's decided which is the index site for the primary outcome pain NRS. Similarly for QST indicate how will select test site? Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Partly Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: musculoskeletal pain, knee pain I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT o'leary h. Reviewer Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37418 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v1#referee-response-37418 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Jan 2025 Fiona Callan , School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland 23 Jan 2025 Author Response Thank you, Dr O’Leary, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you ... Continue reading Thank you, Dr O’Leary, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you have raised below, and amended the paper accordingly. Reviewer comment 1: While the background contains interesting info on the MSK triage initiative it’s not clear from the Introduction why this is an important question? Why is knowing predictors of outcome for this particular patient cohort at 1 year is important? What are the implications of better predicting outcomes? Could it be used for early identification of those at risk of persistent pain and subsequent prioritisation by physiotherapy services? How will this information be used to improve or better current MSK services in Ireland? (some mention of this in Discussion) Whilst we know from the pre-existing literature that MSK triage is effective at decreasing waiting times for secondary care orthopaedics and rheumatology (Fennelly et al., 2018), we do not know what happens to these patients following MSK triage attendance. There is no national research on patient outcomes or what factors may predict patient outcomes in this cohort. The high discharge rate from MSK triage warrants further exploration. It is potentially a consequence of insufficient resources in primary care services resulting in referring practitioners generating referrals to multiple services in primary and secondary care to access the quickest care, and not necessarily the right care at the right time, in line with the Irish government health reform plan (Burke et al., 2018). Identifying predictors of outcome (pain and function) at 12 months has the potential to inform decision making on the optimal patient pathway and trajectory of care by enabling the identification of those at risk of a poor outcome at 1 year, earlier in their journey. Burke S, Barry S, Siersbaek R, Johnston B, Ní Fhallúin M, Thomas S. Sláintecare - A ten-year plan to achieve universal healthcare in Ireland. Health Policy. 2018 Dec;122(12):1278-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.05.006 . Epub 2018 May 22. PMID: 29843901. Fennelly O, Blake C, FitzGerald O, Breen R, Ashton J, Brennan A, Caffrey A, Desmeules F, Cunningham C. Advanced practice physiotherapy-led triage in Irish orthopaedic and rheumatology services: national data audit. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Jun 1;19(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2106-7 . PMID: 29859072; PMCID: PMC5984783. Reviewer comment 2: Also, while the authors refer to previous SRs of predictors of pain and function in MSK conditions. It would be useful to know what type of patient population these relate to (primary care or secondary care). The manuscript has been updated to reflect this in the introduction section. Reviewer comment 3: It is stated that MSK triage clinics have not been studied, which is true, however this cohort are essentially very similar to cohort attending secondary care elective orthopaedic clinics, what are the main findings from these studies? As the focus of this study is on patients who do not receive specialist orthopaedic or rheumatology care, rather than all patients who attend elective orthopaedic clinics, the below sentence in the introduction has been reworded as follows for clarification. Additionally, we’re primarily interested in participants clinical course (i.e. healthcare utilisation) and outcomes over 1 year following their MSK triage appointment. The findings from our study will be discussed in comparison with pre-existing literature in the published paper. ‘H owever, currently, patient outcomes, prognostic stratification, and predictors of outcome up to 1-year later have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics , who do not require referral to specialist orthopaedic or rheumatology care, in Ireland or internationally’. Thank you, Dr O’Leary, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you have raised below, and amended the paper accordingly. Reviewer comment 1: While the background contains interesting info on the MSK triage initiative it’s not clear from the Introduction why this is an important question? Why is knowing predictors of outcome for this particular patient cohort at 1 year is important? What are the implications of better predicting outcomes? Could it be used for early identification of those at risk of persistent pain and subsequent prioritisation by physiotherapy services? How will this information be used to improve or better current MSK services in Ireland? (some mention of this in Discussion) Whilst we know from the pre-existing literature that MSK triage is effective at decreasing waiting times for secondary care orthopaedics and rheumatology (Fennelly et al., 2018), we do not know what happens to these patients following MSK triage attendance. There is no national research on patient outcomes or what factors may predict patient outcomes in this cohort. The high discharge rate from MSK triage warrants further exploration. It is potentially a consequence of insufficient resources in primary care services resulting in referring practitioners generating referrals to multiple services in primary and secondary care to access the quickest care, and not necessarily the right care at the right time, in line with the Irish government health reform plan (Burke et al., 2018). Identifying predictors of outcome (pain and function) at 12 months has the potential to inform decision making on the optimal patient pathway and trajectory of care by enabling the identification of those at risk of a poor outcome at 1 year, earlier in their journey. Burke S, Barry S, Siersbaek R, Johnston B, Ní Fhallúin M, Thomas S. Sláintecare - A ten-year plan to achieve universal healthcare in Ireland. Health Policy. 2018 Dec;122(12):1278-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.05.006 . Epub 2018 May 22. PMID: 29843901. Fennelly O, Blake C, FitzGerald O, Breen R, Ashton J, Brennan A, Caffrey A, Desmeules F, Cunningham C. Advanced practice physiotherapy-led triage in Irish orthopaedic and rheumatology services: national data audit. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Jun 1;19(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2106-7 . PMID: 29859072; PMCID: PMC5984783. Reviewer comment 2: Also, while the authors refer to previous SRs of predictors of pain and function in MSK conditions. It would be useful to know what type of patient population these relate to (primary care or secondary care). The manuscript has been updated to reflect this in the introduction section. Reviewer comment 3: It is stated that MSK triage clinics have not been studied, which is true, however this cohort are essentially very similar to cohort attending secondary care elective orthopaedic clinics, what are the main findings from these studies? As the focus of this study is on patients who do not receive specialist orthopaedic or rheumatology care, rather than all patients who attend elective orthopaedic clinics, the below sentence in the introduction has been reworded as follows for clarification. Additionally, we’re primarily interested in participants clinical course (i.e. healthcare utilisation) and outcomes over 1 year following their MSK triage appointment. The findings from our study will be discussed in comparison with pre-existing literature in the published paper. ‘H owever, currently, patient outcomes, prognostic stratification, and predictors of outcome up to 1-year later have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics , who do not require referral to specialist orthopaedic or rheumatology care, in Ireland or internationally’. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Jan 2025 Fiona Callan , School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland 23 Jan 2025 Author Response Thank you, Dr O’Leary, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you ... Continue reading Thank you, Dr O’Leary, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you have raised below, and amended the paper accordingly. Reviewer comment 1: While the background contains interesting info on the MSK triage initiative it’s not clear from the Introduction why this is an important question? Why is knowing predictors of outcome for this particular patient cohort at 1 year is important? What are the implications of better predicting outcomes? Could it be used for early identification of those at risk of persistent pain and subsequent prioritisation by physiotherapy services? How will this information be used to improve or better current MSK services in Ireland? (some mention of this in Discussion) Whilst we know from the pre-existing literature that MSK triage is effective at decreasing waiting times for secondary care orthopaedics and rheumatology (Fennelly et al., 2018), we do not know what happens to these patients following MSK triage attendance. There is no national research on patient outcomes or what factors may predict patient outcomes in this cohort. The high discharge rate from MSK triage warrants further exploration. It is potentially a consequence of insufficient resources in primary care services resulting in referring practitioners generating referrals to multiple services in primary and secondary care to access the quickest care, and not necessarily the right care at the right time, in line with the Irish government health reform plan (Burke et al., 2018). Identifying predictors of outcome (pain and function) at 12 months has the potential to inform decision making on the optimal patient pathway and trajectory of care by enabling the identification of those at risk of a poor outcome at 1 year, earlier in their journey. Burke S, Barry S, Siersbaek R, Johnston B, Ní Fhallúin M, Thomas S. Sláintecare - A ten-year plan to achieve universal healthcare in Ireland. Health Policy. 2018 Dec;122(12):1278-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.05.006 . Epub 2018 May 22. PMID: 29843901. Fennelly O, Blake C, FitzGerald O, Breen R, Ashton J, Brennan A, Caffrey A, Desmeules F, Cunningham C. Advanced practice physiotherapy-led triage in Irish orthopaedic and rheumatology services: national data audit. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Jun 1;19(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2106-7 . PMID: 29859072; PMCID: PMC5984783. Reviewer comment 2: Also, while the authors refer to previous SRs of predictors of pain and function in MSK conditions. It would be useful to know what type of patient population these relate to (primary care or secondary care). The manuscript has been updated to reflect this in the introduction section. Reviewer comment 3: It is stated that MSK triage clinics have not been studied, which is true, however this cohort are essentially very similar to cohort attending secondary care elective orthopaedic clinics, what are the main findings from these studies? As the focus of this study is on patients who do not receive specialist orthopaedic or rheumatology care, rather than all patients who attend elective orthopaedic clinics, the below sentence in the introduction has been reworded as follows for clarification. Additionally, we’re primarily interested in participants clinical course (i.e. healthcare utilisation) and outcomes over 1 year following their MSK triage appointment. The findings from our study will be discussed in comparison with pre-existing literature in the published paper. ‘H owever, currently, patient outcomes, prognostic stratification, and predictors of outcome up to 1-year later have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics , who do not require referral to specialist orthopaedic or rheumatology care, in Ireland or internationally’. Thank you, Dr O’Leary, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you have raised below, and amended the paper accordingly. Reviewer comment 1: While the background contains interesting info on the MSK triage initiative it’s not clear from the Introduction why this is an important question? Why is knowing predictors of outcome for this particular patient cohort at 1 year is important? What are the implications of better predicting outcomes? Could it be used for early identification of those at risk of persistent pain and subsequent prioritisation by physiotherapy services? How will this information be used to improve or better current MSK services in Ireland? (some mention of this in Discussion) Whilst we know from the pre-existing literature that MSK triage is effective at decreasing waiting times for secondary care orthopaedics and rheumatology (Fennelly et al., 2018), we do not know what happens to these patients following MSK triage attendance. There is no national research on patient outcomes or what factors may predict patient outcomes in this cohort. The high discharge rate from MSK triage warrants further exploration. It is potentially a consequence of insufficient resources in primary care services resulting in referring practitioners generating referrals to multiple services in primary and secondary care to access the quickest care, and not necessarily the right care at the right time, in line with the Irish government health reform plan (Burke et al., 2018). Identifying predictors of outcome (pain and function) at 12 months has the potential to inform decision making on the optimal patient pathway and trajectory of care by enabling the identification of those at risk of a poor outcome at 1 year, earlier in their journey. Burke S, Barry S, Siersbaek R, Johnston B, Ní Fhallúin M, Thomas S. Sláintecare - A ten-year plan to achieve universal healthcare in Ireland. Health Policy. 2018 Dec;122(12):1278-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.05.006 . Epub 2018 May 22. PMID: 29843901. Fennelly O, Blake C, FitzGerald O, Breen R, Ashton J, Brennan A, Caffrey A, Desmeules F, Cunningham C. Advanced practice physiotherapy-led triage in Irish orthopaedic and rheumatology services: national data audit. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Jun 1;19(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2106-7 . PMID: 29859072; PMCID: PMC5984783. Reviewer comment 2: Also, while the authors refer to previous SRs of predictors of pain and function in MSK conditions. It would be useful to know what type of patient population these relate to (primary care or secondary care). The manuscript has been updated to reflect this in the introduction section. Reviewer comment 3: It is stated that MSK triage clinics have not been studied, which is true, however this cohort are essentially very similar to cohort attending secondary care elective orthopaedic clinics, what are the main findings from these studies? As the focus of this study is on patients who do not receive specialist orthopaedic or rheumatology care, rather than all patients who attend elective orthopaedic clinics, the below sentence in the introduction has been reworded as follows for clarification. Additionally, we’re primarily interested in participants clinical course (i.e. healthcare utilisation) and outcomes over 1 year following their MSK triage appointment. The findings from our study will be discussed in comparison with pre-existing literature in the published paper. ‘H owever, currently, patient outcomes, prognostic stratification, and predictors of outcome up to 1-year later have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics , who do not require referral to specialist orthopaedic or rheumatology care, in Ireland or internationally’. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Samsson K. Reviewer Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37424 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v1#referee-response-37424 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 01 Feb 2024 Karin Samsson , University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37424 This is an important aspect to address in research, to improve on the knowledge regarding the patients that are referred for MSK triage. Furthermore, to be able to screen patients prior to referral could reduce waiting times as well as ... Continue reading READ ALL This is an important aspect to address in research, to improve on the knowledge regarding the patients that are referred for MSK triage. Furthermore, to be able to screen patients prior to referral could reduce waiting times as well as improve care on the right level. You state in the introduction that 71% of patients were discharged at their initial appointment and 23% referred to physiotherapy, which makes me wonder. The 71% who were discharged, do you think that they would have needed different care than what they received? And since this large number of patients were discharged, and not referred to physiotherapy, why do you think predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain. is important to investigate for this patients group? The aims are not consistently reported throughout the paper. You have a great number of predictors and outcomes, but I struggle to make them out clearly since they are inconsistently reported in introduction and various sections in the methods. It would be highly beneficial for the reader to have these clearly and consistently presented regarding what outcome you want to measure and what outcome measure you use. Furthermore, to use the same terms i.e. in some sections you use workers' sick leave, sick leave or work-related factors. Participants​​​ Regarding patients included in the study - who is responsible for deciding which patients are "unlikely to require consultant care" and based on what? Are the patients to be included in the study after the triage? When is the patient asked to participate? And why don’t you include the patients in need of orthopaedic surgeon to be able to investigate predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain for them as well? Considering that 71% are discharged, it would probably be quite beneficial to know if there is a difference between these two groups. Sample size There is no formal sample size calculation. Recruitment and data collection You state that the MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility – is this before the actual triage? I think this process needs to be clearly described (as also addressed in previous question). If I understand correctly you are collecting two written consents? What is the purpose of that? Why did you chose to have a teams or telephone data collection as well as questionnaires? Inconsistent reporting of outcomes collected and through what outcome measures, order and the use of abbreviations or not. Furthermore not clear which ones are collected via self-reported questionnaires vs telephone/teams. Furthermore, not all outcomes are included in the primary or secondary outcomes. The outcome health literacy is not mentioned or described prior to data collection. The whole section starting with “Pain hypersensitivity, measured by… / (Figure 1) seems more to belong in the introduction section. Outcomes Outcomes are not consistent with aims. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Partly Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Physiotherapist led orthopaedic triage. Have not focused on the statistics part as that is not my area of expertise. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Samsson K. Reviewer Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37424 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v1#referee-response-37424 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 23 Jan 2025 Fiona Callan , School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland 23 Jan 2025 Author Response Thank you, Dr Samsson, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you ... Continue reading Thank you, Dr Samsson, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you have raised below, and amended the paper accordingly. Reviewer Comment 1: You state in the introduction that 71% of patients were discharged at their initial appointment and 23% referred to physiotherapy, which makes me wonder. The 71% who were discharged, do you think that they would have needed different care than what they received? And since this large number of patients were discharged, and not referred to physiotherapy, why do you think predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain is important to investigate for this patients group? Currently, we do not know from the literature why there is a high discharge rate, nor why a lower percentage are referred to physiotherapy. Historically waiting times to access primary care physiotherapy and secondary care services in Ireland (e.g. pain management, orthopaedics, rheumatology) are long, resulting in delays to patients accessing MSK care. It is hypothesised that many patients are referred for imaging, primary care physiotherapy and secondary care orthopaedics or rheumatology simultaneously in order to receive the quickest care in the absence of a resourced stepwise integrated care pathway. Therefore, we wanted to study the cohort of patients who attended secondary care MSK triage services and did not require surgical or medical input from the orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatologist to better understand their healthcare journey (healthcare utilisation), clinical outcomes (pain and function) and predictors of outcome. We have reflected the importance of this research study in the introduction section. Reviewer Comment 2: The aims are not consistently reported throughout the paper. We have updated and addressed the aims of our study in the introduction, methods and discussion sections. Reviewer comment 3: You have a great number of predictors and outcomes, but I struggle to make them out clearly since they are inconsistently reported in introduction and various sections in the methods. It would be highly beneficial for the reader to have these clearly and consistently presented regarding what outcome you want to measure and what outcome measure you use. Furthermore, to use the same terms i.e. in some sections you use workers' sick leave, sick leave or work-related factors. Primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and predictor variables are outlined in Table 1, along with their method of collection (e.g. Microsoft teams/telephone or REDCap/postal questionnaire). Reviewer comment 4: Regarding patients included in the study - who is responsible for deciding which patients are "unlikely to require consultant care" and based on what? Participants in this study will be recruited after attending a MSK triage clinic in a participating site. There, a MSK triage physiotherapist will triage the patient and decide if the patient requires consultant review for surgical or medical management, or alternative management options (e.g. discharge to GP, physiotherapy referral, referral for imaging, pain medicine referral etc.) as is their normal clinical practice. Only those patients who do not require consultant referral following MSK triage review are eligible for inclusion in this study. It’s at this point, once the decision for non-consultant care is decided and eligibility is determined, that participants are invited to participate in the study by the MSK triage physiotherapist. Reviewer comment 5: Are the patients to be included in the study after the triage? When is the patient asked to participate? And why don’t you include the patients in need of orthopaedic surgeon to be able to investigate predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain for them as well? Considering that 71% are discharged, it would probably be quite beneficial to know if there is a difference between these two groups. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the patient journey through MSK triage services in Ireland of those who, in reality may never have needed to attend secondary care. Whilst lots of research has reported the percentage of patients who are discharged from MSK triage, without needing specialist referral, there is limited research on their outcomes up to one–year. Therefore, we excluded those patients who required onward referral to consultant orthopaedic surgeons or rheumatologists, as they may often require surgical management (e.g. joint replacement surgery) or medical management of a systemic condition (e.g. inflammatory arthritis). There is also a cohort of patients, whom following GP referral, are seen directly by the consultant, following triaging of referrals. This cohort of patients do not attend MSK triage and are instead managed directly by the consultant. Therefore, we wanted to focus on the cohort of patients who did not require consultant led surgical or medical management to evaluate their outcomes (pain and function) and healthcare utilisation following MSK triage and identify predictors of outcome, which may help inform the development of modernised care pathways for the management of musculoskeletal pain. Reviewer comment 6: You state that the MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility – is this before the actual triage? I think this process needs to be clearly described (as also addressed in previous question). This has been updated in the ‘Recruitment and Data Collection’ section to say “The MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility following their MSK triage appointment”. Therefore, eligibility can only be determined once the triage appointment is complete. Reviewer comment 7: There is no formal sample size calculation. Patient outcomes and potential explanatory variables associated with outcomes up to 1-year after musculoskeletal triage review have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics in Ireland or internationally, and thus there is limited information on potential explanatory variables associated with pain. We agree the number "10" is somewhat arbitrary, and its applicability can vary depending on the context and characteristics of the data (Vittinghoff and Mcculloch, 2007, Peduzzi et al., 1996). We used this as a guideline to the minimum sample size required, acknowledging practical constraints, and carefully considering explanatory variables to explore in this study based on theory and previous research. Please also refer to our response to Reviewer 1 regarding the sample size query Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(6):710-8. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373-9. Reviewer comment 8: If I understand correctly you are collecting two written consents? What is the purpose of that? A cooling off period is required between the time of introduction to the study and the obtaining of informed consent. The researcher (FC) is not present at the MSK triage clinics and due to the busy nature of these clinics, it would not be feasible to allow for a cooling off period on the day. Therefore, MSK triage physios, upon introducing the study to the patient obtain consent to contact(i.e. be contacted by the research team) from interested patients. This allows the researcher (FC) to contact the participant the following day (12-24 hours later) to obtain informed consent and recruit participants to the study. This is in line with our research ethics requirements. Reviewer comment 9: Why did you chose to have a teams or telephone data collection as well as questionnaires? The patient demographic attending MSK triage clinics have varied information technology (IT) skills, therefore we decided it would be best to offer those with limited IT skills the ability to still participate by allowing for telephone call assessments and paper questionnaires. This sentence in the recruitment and data collection section has been updated as follows: ‘This data will be collected through Research Electronic Data capture (REDCap) software ( 28 , 29 ), hosted at RCSI, on their personal device, or via posted paper questionnaires to facilitate participants with limited information technology skills .’ Reviewer comment 10: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes collected and through what outcome measures, order and the use of abbreviations or not. Furthermore not clear which ones are collected via self-reported questionnaires vs telephone/teams. Furthermore, not all outcomes are included in the primary or secondary outcomes. All predictor variables and outcomes are outlined in table 1, along with their method of collection (e.g. Microsoft teams/telephone or REDCap/postal questionnaire). Consistency in reporting of outcomes/variables and the measures used has been revised in the new manuscript. Reviewer comment 11: The outcome health literacy is not mentioned or described prior to data collection. Health literacy is now included in the introduction and data collection sections along with table 1. Reviewer comment 12: The whole section starting with “Pain hypersensitivity, measured by… / (Figure 1) seems more to belong in the introduction section. This was included to further describe the quantitative sensory testing component of this project. Reference to altered pain processing is also included in the introduction section. Reviewer comment 13: Outcomes are not consistent with aims. We have revised our aims to align with our outcomes in the revised manuscript. Thank you, Dr Samsson, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you have raised below, and amended the paper accordingly. Reviewer Comment 1: You state in the introduction that 71% of patients were discharged at their initial appointment and 23% referred to physiotherapy, which makes me wonder. The 71% who were discharged, do you think that they would have needed different care than what they received? And since this large number of patients were discharged, and not referred to physiotherapy, why do you think predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain is important to investigate for this patients group? Currently, we do not know from the literature why there is a high discharge rate, nor why a lower percentage are referred to physiotherapy. Historically waiting times to access primary care physiotherapy and secondary care services in Ireland (e.g. pain management, orthopaedics, rheumatology) are long, resulting in delays to patients accessing MSK care. It is hypothesised that many patients are referred for imaging, primary care physiotherapy and secondary care orthopaedics or rheumatology simultaneously in order to receive the quickest care in the absence of a resourced stepwise integrated care pathway. Therefore, we wanted to study the cohort of patients who attended secondary care MSK triage services and did not require surgical or medical input from the orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatologist to better understand their healthcare journey (healthcare utilisation), clinical outcomes (pain and function) and predictors of outcome. We have reflected the importance of this research study in the introduction section. Reviewer Comment 2: The aims are not consistently reported throughout the paper. We have updated and addressed the aims of our study in the introduction, methods and discussion sections. Reviewer comment 3: You have a great number of predictors and outcomes, but I struggle to make them out clearly since they are inconsistently reported in introduction and various sections in the methods. It would be highly beneficial for the reader to have these clearly and consistently presented regarding what outcome you want to measure and what outcome measure you use. Furthermore, to use the same terms i.e. in some sections you use workers' sick leave, sick leave or work-related factors. Primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and predictor variables are outlined in Table 1, along with their method of collection (e.g. Microsoft teams/telephone or REDCap/postal questionnaire). Reviewer comment 4: Regarding patients included in the study - who is responsible for deciding which patients are "unlikely to require consultant care" and based on what? Participants in this study will be recruited after attending a MSK triage clinic in a participating site. There, a MSK triage physiotherapist will triage the patient and decide if the patient requires consultant review for surgical or medical management, or alternative management options (e.g. discharge to GP, physiotherapy referral, referral for imaging, pain medicine referral etc.) as is their normal clinical practice. Only those patients who do not require consultant referral following MSK triage review are eligible for inclusion in this study. It’s at this point, once the decision for non-consultant care is decided and eligibility is determined, that participants are invited to participate in the study by the MSK triage physiotherapist. Reviewer comment 5: Are the patients to be included in the study after the triage? When is the patient asked to participate? And why don’t you include the patients in need of orthopaedic surgeon to be able to investigate predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain for them as well? Considering that 71% are discharged, it would probably be quite beneficial to know if there is a difference between these two groups. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the patient journey through MSK triage services in Ireland of those who, in reality may never have needed to attend secondary care. Whilst lots of research has reported the percentage of patients who are discharged from MSK triage, without needing specialist referral, there is limited research on their outcomes up to one–year. Therefore, we excluded those patients who required onward referral to consultant orthopaedic surgeons or rheumatologists, as they may often require surgical management (e.g. joint replacement surgery) or medical management of a systemic condition (e.g. inflammatory arthritis). There is also a cohort of patients, whom following GP referral, are seen directly by the consultant, following triaging of referrals. This cohort of patients do not attend MSK triage and are instead managed directly by the consultant. Therefore, we wanted to focus on the cohort of patients who did not require consultant led surgical or medical management to evaluate their outcomes (pain and function) and healthcare utilisation following MSK triage and identify predictors of outcome, which may help inform the development of modernised care pathways for the management of musculoskeletal pain. Reviewer comment 6: You state that the MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility – is this before the actual triage? I think this process needs to be clearly described (as also addressed in previous question). This has been updated in the ‘Recruitment and Data Collection’ section to say “The MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility following their MSK triage appointment”. Therefore, eligibility can only be determined once the triage appointment is complete. Reviewer comment 7: There is no formal sample size calculation. Patient outcomes and potential explanatory variables associated with outcomes up to 1-year after musculoskeletal triage review have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics in Ireland or internationally, and thus there is limited information on potential explanatory variables associated with pain. We agree the number "10" is somewhat arbitrary, and its applicability can vary depending on the context and characteristics of the data (Vittinghoff and Mcculloch, 2007, Peduzzi et al., 1996). We used this as a guideline to the minimum sample size required, acknowledging practical constraints, and carefully considering explanatory variables to explore in this study based on theory and previous research. Please also refer to our response to Reviewer 1 regarding the sample size query Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(6):710-8. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373-9. Reviewer comment 8: If I understand correctly you are collecting two written consents? What is the purpose of that? A cooling off period is required between the time of introduction to the study and the obtaining of informed consent. The researcher (FC) is not present at the MSK triage clinics and due to the busy nature of these clinics, it would not be feasible to allow for a cooling off period on the day. Therefore, MSK triage physios, upon introducing the study to the patient obtain consent to contact(i.e. be contacted by the research team) from interested patients. This allows the researcher (FC) to contact the participant the following day (12-24 hours later) to obtain informed consent and recruit participants to the study. This is in line with our research ethics requirements. Reviewer comment 9: Why did you chose to have a teams or telephone data collection as well as questionnaires? The patient demographic attending MSK triage clinics have varied information technology (IT) skills, therefore we decided it would be best to offer those with limited IT skills the ability to still participate by allowing for telephone call assessments and paper questionnaires. This sentence in the recruitment and data collection section has been updated as follows: ‘This data will be collected through Research Electronic Data capture (REDCap) software ( 28 , 29 ), hosted at RCSI, on their personal device, or via posted paper questionnaires to facilitate participants with limited information technology skills .’ Reviewer comment 10: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes collected and through what outcome measures, order and the use of abbreviations or not. Furthermore not clear which ones are collected via self-reported questionnaires vs telephone/teams. Furthermore, not all outcomes are included in the primary or secondary outcomes. All predictor variables and outcomes are outlined in table 1, along with their method of collection (e.g. Microsoft teams/telephone or REDCap/postal questionnaire). Consistency in reporting of outcomes/variables and the measures used has been revised in the new manuscript. Reviewer comment 11: The outcome health literacy is not mentioned or described prior to data collection. Health literacy is now included in the introduction and data collection sections along with table 1. Reviewer comment 12: The whole section starting with “Pain hypersensitivity, measured by… / (Figure 1) seems more to belong in the introduction section. This was included to further describe the quantitative sensory testing component of this project. Reference to altered pain processing is also included in the introduction section. Reviewer comment 13: Outcomes are not consistent with aims. We have revised our aims to align with our outcomes in the revised manuscript. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 23 Jan 2025 Fiona Callan , School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland 23 Jan 2025 Author Response Thank you, Dr Samsson, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you ... Continue reading Thank you, Dr Samsson, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you have raised below, and amended the paper accordingly. Reviewer Comment 1: You state in the introduction that 71% of patients were discharged at their initial appointment and 23% referred to physiotherapy, which makes me wonder. The 71% who were discharged, do you think that they would have needed different care than what they received? And since this large number of patients were discharged, and not referred to physiotherapy, why do you think predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain is important to investigate for this patients group? Currently, we do not know from the literature why there is a high discharge rate, nor why a lower percentage are referred to physiotherapy. Historically waiting times to access primary care physiotherapy and secondary care services in Ireland (e.g. pain management, orthopaedics, rheumatology) are long, resulting in delays to patients accessing MSK care. It is hypothesised that many patients are referred for imaging, primary care physiotherapy and secondary care orthopaedics or rheumatology simultaneously in order to receive the quickest care in the absence of a resourced stepwise integrated care pathway. Therefore, we wanted to study the cohort of patients who attended secondary care MSK triage services and did not require surgical or medical input from the orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatologist to better understand their healthcare journey (healthcare utilisation), clinical outcomes (pain and function) and predictors of outcome. We have reflected the importance of this research study in the introduction section. Reviewer Comment 2: The aims are not consistently reported throughout the paper. We have updated and addressed the aims of our study in the introduction, methods and discussion sections. Reviewer comment 3: You have a great number of predictors and outcomes, but I struggle to make them out clearly since they are inconsistently reported in introduction and various sections in the methods. It would be highly beneficial for the reader to have these clearly and consistently presented regarding what outcome you want to measure and what outcome measure you use. Furthermore, to use the same terms i.e. in some sections you use workers' sick leave, sick leave or work-related factors. Primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and predictor variables are outlined in Table 1, along with their method of collection (e.g. Microsoft teams/telephone or REDCap/postal questionnaire). Reviewer comment 4: Regarding patients included in the study - who is responsible for deciding which patients are "unlikely to require consultant care" and based on what? Participants in this study will be recruited after attending a MSK triage clinic in a participating site. There, a MSK triage physiotherapist will triage the patient and decide if the patient requires consultant review for surgical or medical management, or alternative management options (e.g. discharge to GP, physiotherapy referral, referral for imaging, pain medicine referral etc.) as is their normal clinical practice. Only those patients who do not require consultant referral following MSK triage review are eligible for inclusion in this study. It’s at this point, once the decision for non-consultant care is decided and eligibility is determined, that participants are invited to participate in the study by the MSK triage physiotherapist. Reviewer comment 5: Are the patients to be included in the study after the triage? When is the patient asked to participate? And why don’t you include the patients in need of orthopaedic surgeon to be able to investigate predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain for them as well? Considering that 71% are discharged, it would probably be quite beneficial to know if there is a difference between these two groups. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the patient journey through MSK triage services in Ireland of those who, in reality may never have needed to attend secondary care. Whilst lots of research has reported the percentage of patients who are discharged from MSK triage, without needing specialist referral, there is limited research on their outcomes up to one–year. Therefore, we excluded those patients who required onward referral to consultant orthopaedic surgeons or rheumatologists, as they may often require surgical management (e.g. joint replacement surgery) or medical management of a systemic condition (e.g. inflammatory arthritis). There is also a cohort of patients, whom following GP referral, are seen directly by the consultant, following triaging of referrals. This cohort of patients do not attend MSK triage and are instead managed directly by the consultant. Therefore, we wanted to focus on the cohort of patients who did not require consultant led surgical or medical management to evaluate their outcomes (pain and function) and healthcare utilisation following MSK triage and identify predictors of outcome, which may help inform the development of modernised care pathways for the management of musculoskeletal pain. Reviewer comment 6: You state that the MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility – is this before the actual triage? I think this process needs to be clearly described (as also addressed in previous question). This has been updated in the ‘Recruitment and Data Collection’ section to say “The MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility following their MSK triage appointment”. Therefore, eligibility can only be determined once the triage appointment is complete. Reviewer comment 7: There is no formal sample size calculation. Patient outcomes and potential explanatory variables associated with outcomes up to 1-year after musculoskeletal triage review have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics in Ireland or internationally, and thus there is limited information on potential explanatory variables associated with pain. We agree the number "10" is somewhat arbitrary, and its applicability can vary depending on the context and characteristics of the data (Vittinghoff and Mcculloch, 2007, Peduzzi et al., 1996). We used this as a guideline to the minimum sample size required, acknowledging practical constraints, and carefully considering explanatory variables to explore in this study based on theory and previous research. Please also refer to our response to Reviewer 1 regarding the sample size query Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(6):710-8. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373-9. Reviewer comment 8: If I understand correctly you are collecting two written consents? What is the purpose of that? A cooling off period is required between the time of introduction to the study and the obtaining of informed consent. The researcher (FC) is not present at the MSK triage clinics and due to the busy nature of these clinics, it would not be feasible to allow for a cooling off period on the day. Therefore, MSK triage physios, upon introducing the study to the patient obtain consent to contact(i.e. be contacted by the research team) from interested patients. This allows the researcher (FC) to contact the participant the following day (12-24 hours later) to obtain informed consent and recruit participants to the study. This is in line with our research ethics requirements. Reviewer comment 9: Why did you chose to have a teams or telephone data collection as well as questionnaires? The patient demographic attending MSK triage clinics have varied information technology (IT) skills, therefore we decided it would be best to offer those with limited IT skills the ability to still participate by allowing for telephone call assessments and paper questionnaires. This sentence in the recruitment and data collection section has been updated as follows: ‘This data will be collected through Research Electronic Data capture (REDCap) software ( 28 , 29 ), hosted at RCSI, on their personal device, or via posted paper questionnaires to facilitate participants with limited information technology skills .’ Reviewer comment 10: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes collected and through what outcome measures, order and the use of abbreviations or not. Furthermore not clear which ones are collected via self-reported questionnaires vs telephone/teams. Furthermore, not all outcomes are included in the primary or secondary outcomes. All predictor variables and outcomes are outlined in table 1, along with their method of collection (e.g. Microsoft teams/telephone or REDCap/postal questionnaire). Consistency in reporting of outcomes/variables and the measures used has been revised in the new manuscript. Reviewer comment 11: The outcome health literacy is not mentioned or described prior to data collection. Health literacy is now included in the introduction and data collection sections along with table 1. Reviewer comment 12: The whole section starting with “Pain hypersensitivity, measured by… / (Figure 1) seems more to belong in the introduction section. This was included to further describe the quantitative sensory testing component of this project. Reference to altered pain processing is also included in the introduction section. Reviewer comment 13: Outcomes are not consistent with aims. We have revised our aims to align with our outcomes in the revised manuscript. Thank you, Dr Samsson, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you have raised below, and amended the paper accordingly. Reviewer Comment 1: You state in the introduction that 71% of patients were discharged at their initial appointment and 23% referred to physiotherapy, which makes me wonder. The 71% who were discharged, do you think that they would have needed different care than what they received? And since this large number of patients were discharged, and not referred to physiotherapy, why do you think predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain is important to investigate for this patients group? Currently, we do not know from the literature why there is a high discharge rate, nor why a lower percentage are referred to physiotherapy. Historically waiting times to access primary care physiotherapy and secondary care services in Ireland (e.g. pain management, orthopaedics, rheumatology) are long, resulting in delays to patients accessing MSK care. It is hypothesised that many patients are referred for imaging, primary care physiotherapy and secondary care orthopaedics or rheumatology simultaneously in order to receive the quickest care in the absence of a resourced stepwise integrated care pathway. Therefore, we wanted to study the cohort of patients who attended secondary care MSK triage services and did not require surgical or medical input from the orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatologist to better understand their healthcare journey (healthcare utilisation), clinical outcomes (pain and function) and predictors of outcome. We have reflected the importance of this research study in the introduction section. Reviewer Comment 2: The aims are not consistently reported throughout the paper. We have updated and addressed the aims of our study in the introduction, methods and discussion sections. Reviewer comment 3: You have a great number of predictors and outcomes, but I struggle to make them out clearly since they are inconsistently reported in introduction and various sections in the methods. It would be highly beneficial for the reader to have these clearly and consistently presented regarding what outcome you want to measure and what outcome measure you use. Furthermore, to use the same terms i.e. in some sections you use workers' sick leave, sick leave or work-related factors. Primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and predictor variables are outlined in Table 1, along with their method of collection (e.g. Microsoft teams/telephone or REDCap/postal questionnaire). Reviewer comment 4: Regarding patients included in the study - who is responsible for deciding which patients are "unlikely to require consultant care" and based on what? Participants in this study will be recruited after attending a MSK triage clinic in a participating site. There, a MSK triage physiotherapist will triage the patient and decide if the patient requires consultant review for surgical or medical management, or alternative management options (e.g. discharge to GP, physiotherapy referral, referral for imaging, pain medicine referral etc.) as is their normal clinical practice. Only those patients who do not require consultant referral following MSK triage review are eligible for inclusion in this study. It’s at this point, once the decision for non-consultant care is decided and eligibility is determined, that participants are invited to participate in the study by the MSK triage physiotherapist. Reviewer comment 5: Are the patients to be included in the study after the triage? When is the patient asked to participate? And why don’t you include the patients in need of orthopaedic surgeon to be able to investigate predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain for them as well? Considering that 71% are discharged, it would probably be quite beneficial to know if there is a difference between these two groups. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the patient journey through MSK triage services in Ireland of those who, in reality may never have needed to attend secondary care. Whilst lots of research has reported the percentage of patients who are discharged from MSK triage, without needing specialist referral, there is limited research on their outcomes up to one–year. Therefore, we excluded those patients who required onward referral to consultant orthopaedic surgeons or rheumatologists, as they may often require surgical management (e.g. joint replacement surgery) or medical management of a systemic condition (e.g. inflammatory arthritis). There is also a cohort of patients, whom following GP referral, are seen directly by the consultant, following triaging of referrals. This cohort of patients do not attend MSK triage and are instead managed directly by the consultant. Therefore, we wanted to focus on the cohort of patients who did not require consultant led surgical or medical management to evaluate their outcomes (pain and function) and healthcare utilisation following MSK triage and identify predictors of outcome, which may help inform the development of modernised care pathways for the management of musculoskeletal pain. Reviewer comment 6: You state that the MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility – is this before the actual triage? I think this process needs to be clearly described (as also addressed in previous question). This has been updated in the ‘Recruitment and Data Collection’ section to say “The MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility following their MSK triage appointment”. Therefore, eligibility can only be determined once the triage appointment is complete. Reviewer comment 7: There is no formal sample size calculation. Patient outcomes and potential explanatory variables associated with outcomes up to 1-year after musculoskeletal triage review have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics in Ireland or internationally, and thus there is limited information on potential explanatory variables associated with pain. We agree the number "10" is somewhat arbitrary, and its applicability can vary depending on the context and characteristics of the data (Vittinghoff and Mcculloch, 2007, Peduzzi et al., 1996). We used this as a guideline to the minimum sample size required, acknowledging practical constraints, and carefully considering explanatory variables to explore in this study based on theory and previous research. Please also refer to our response to Reviewer 1 regarding the sample size query Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(6):710-8. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373-9. Reviewer comment 8: If I understand correctly you are collecting two written consents? What is the purpose of that? A cooling off period is required between the time of introduction to the study and the obtaining of informed consent. The researcher (FC) is not present at the MSK triage clinics and due to the busy nature of these clinics, it would not be feasible to allow for a cooling off period on the day. Therefore, MSK triage physios, upon introducing the study to the patient obtain consent to contact(i.e. be contacted by the research team) from interested patients. This allows the researcher (FC) to contact the participant the following day (12-24 hours later) to obtain informed consent and recruit participants to the study. This is in line with our research ethics requirements. Reviewer comment 9: Why did you chose to have a teams or telephone data collection as well as questionnaires? The patient demographic attending MSK triage clinics have varied information technology (IT) skills, therefore we decided it would be best to offer those with limited IT skills the ability to still participate by allowing for telephone call assessments and paper questionnaires. This sentence in the recruitment and data collection section has been updated as follows: ‘This data will be collected through Research Electronic Data capture (REDCap) software ( 28 , 29 ), hosted at RCSI, on their personal device, or via posted paper questionnaires to facilitate participants with limited information technology skills .’ Reviewer comment 10: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes collected and through what outcome measures, order and the use of abbreviations or not. Furthermore not clear which ones are collected via self-reported questionnaires vs telephone/teams. Furthermore, not all outcomes are included in the primary or secondary outcomes. All predictor variables and outcomes are outlined in table 1, along with their method of collection (e.g. Microsoft teams/telephone or REDCap/postal questionnaire). Consistency in reporting of outcomes/variables and the measures used has been revised in the new manuscript. Reviewer comment 11: The outcome health literacy is not mentioned or described prior to data collection. Health literacy is now included in the introduction and data collection sections along with table 1. Reviewer comment 12: The whole section starting with “Pain hypersensitivity, measured by… / (Figure 1) seems more to belong in the introduction section. This was included to further describe the quantitative sensory testing component of this project. Reference to altered pain processing is also included in the introduction section. Reviewer comment 13: Outcomes are not consistent with aims. We have revised our aims to align with our outcomes in the revised manuscript. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Aryal S. Reviewer Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37570 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v1#referee-response-37570 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 16 Jan 2024 Subhash Aryal , University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37570 I focused on the statistical analysis component of the manuscript. Here are my specific concerns regarding this manuscript. 1) There is no formal sample size calculation. Rule of thumb of 10 events per variable is used. Software ... Continue reading READ ALL I focused on the statistical analysis component of the manuscript. Here are my specific concerns regarding this manuscript. 1) There is no formal sample size calculation. Rule of thumb of 10 events per variable is used. Software including PASS, SAS can actually provide a more formal sample size estimation. 2) The authors propose using repeated measures multivariable regression. I recommend being more specific in terms of whether it is random-effects model, covariance pattern model or marginal GEE model. 3) The authors have adjusted sample size to account for attrition. But missing data is not addressed in the statistical analysis plan. 4) If the authors are going to run separate models for baseline predictors of pain and function outcomes at three, six and the primary timepoint of 12 months, they should adjust the statistical significance level to adjust for inflated type I error rate. 5) There is no detail provided regarding the proposed Latent Class Analysis. 6) On page 4, column 2 the authors state "..... multiple MSK conditions (e.g., osteoarthritis, low back pain, whiplash, post-operative pain). It is quite possible that a large majority with post-operative pain may be lost to follow-up at 12 months. If the participant's pain is not chronic, they may drop-out of the study. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Biostatist I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Aryal S. Reviewer Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37570 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v1#referee-response-37570 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Dec 2023 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 2 (revision) 23 Jan 25 read Version 1 06 Dec 23 read read read Subhash Aryal , University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA Karin Samsson , University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden helen o'leary , University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland Shahnawaz Anwer , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Anwer S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 25 Feb 2025 | for Version 2 Shahnawaz Anwer , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong 0 Views copyright © 2025 Anwer S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The protocol of this cohort study primarily aimed to identify predictors of clinical outcome (pain and function) at 12-months post MSK-triage appointment. Secondarily, this study aimed to describe the clinical course of patients attending MSK triage clinics and measure self-reported use of healthcare resources up to 12 months post-MSK-triage appointment. The topic is interesting and useful. The study design is well planned and feasible. However, there are some inconsistencies in reporting primary and secondary outcomes. Comments: 1. There are inconsistencies in pain measurements. For example, if pain intensity is assessed through multiple methods, it should be consistently defined and reported to avoid ambiguity. 2. Some outcomes are not included in all follow-up assessments. For example, if certain outcomes such as health literacy, Fear of Movement, Anxiety and Depression, and grip strength are recorded at baseline but not during follow-ups, it may leave gaps in the understanding of how these factors evolve over time. 3. Protocol should identify and report any potential limitations and how to address those limitations. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Yes Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Rehabilitation, Osteoarthritis, Musculoskeletal Research, Ergonomics, Physical Fatigue I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Anwer S. Peer Review Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15444.r45241) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v2#referee-response-45241 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 o'leary h. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 20 Feb 2024 | for Version 1 helen o'leary , University of Limerick, Limerick, County Limerick, Ireland 0 Views copyright © 2024 o'leary h. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Introduction Overall could include more information to expand on the gap this research is addressing/what is known already and why this research is important While the background contains interesting info on the MSK triage initiative it’s not clear from the Introduction why this is an important question? Why is knowing predictors of outcome for this particular patient cohort at 1 year is important? What are the implications of better predicting outcomes? Could it be used for early identification of those at risk of persistent pain and subsequent prioritisation by physiotherapy services? How will this information be used to improve or better current MSK services in Ireland? (some mention of this in Discussion) Also, while the authors refer to previous SRs of predictors of pain and function in MSK conditions, it would be useful to know what type of patient population these relate to (primary care or secondary care). It is stated that MSK triage clinics have not been studied, which is true, however this cohort are essentially very similar to cohort attending secondary care elective othopaedic clinics, what are the main findings from these studies? Methods Study Design- Follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 months- is there a pre-specified primary end-point? How many are estimated to undergo a baseline physical exam? Will there be sufficient data from these two sites to carry out the anticipated data analysis e.g. latent class analysis or multi-variable analysis? Or is this info solely to categorise the pain phenotype? Should make reference to this sub-group in the data analysis section. Pain phenotyping- using IASP criteria and NeuPSIG based on baseline physical exam. Is this different to the Latent Class Analysis to explore underlying pain phenotypes “based on a range of categorical variables”? Clarify this. How soon will the physical exam be after the patient is recruited? What is the anticipated duration of this examination eg. 1 hour? QST- Would have expected in a protocol to see more detail here in order that your testing procedures are reproducible. For example how do you intend to choose anatomical testing sites (related to the primary pain complaint?) What is the order of testing? Instruments- Device you are using for pressure pain algometry, what thermal testing devices?. What is pinprick testing? References (41, 42) provided are for grading systems and not for a QST protocol. Did the authors mean to reference the Rolke et al, 2006 (40)DFNS protocol here? If DFNS Rolke 2006 protocol is what the researchers are using, are the researchers following a modified version of DFNS Rolke 2006 protocol or reproducing exactly. For example, this protocol uses testing of 1 pinprick versus 10 repeated pinpricks and repeats this procedure 5 times, this (55 pinpricks !) may be poorly tolerated by patients, esp hyperalgesic. Have the researcher’s modified this? How? Perhaps Table 1 could include more detail on protocol or how differs to referenced protocol or include as supplementary info Table 1- different QST info compared to text- pinprick omitted, heat pain threshold here instead of cold pain thresholds Clinical Neurological Exam- indicate in Table 1 what will this entail? Is the main purpose to help with pain classification? Patients attending Rheumatology MSK triage clinics are typically multi-site MSK pain, eg. Small joints of the hands plus other several painful area. It is not clear how it's decided which is the index site for the primary outcome pain NRS. Similarly for QST indicate how will select test site? Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Partly Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise musculoskeletal pain, knee pain I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Jan 2025 Fiona Callan, School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland Thank you, Dr O’Leary, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you have raised below, and amended the paper accordingly. Reviewer comment 1: While the background contains interesting info on the MSK triage initiative it’s not clear from the Introduction why this is an important question? Why is knowing predictors of outcome for this particular patient cohort at 1 year is important? What are the implications of better predicting outcomes? Could it be used for early identification of those at risk of persistent pain and subsequent prioritisation by physiotherapy services? How will this information be used to improve or better current MSK services in Ireland? (some mention of this in Discussion) Whilst we know from the pre-existing literature that MSK triage is effective at decreasing waiting times for secondary care orthopaedics and rheumatology (Fennelly et al., 2018), we do not know what happens to these patients following MSK triage attendance. There is no national research on patient outcomes or what factors may predict patient outcomes in this cohort. The high discharge rate from MSK triage warrants further exploration. It is potentially a consequence of insufficient resources in primary care services resulting in referring practitioners generating referrals to multiple services in primary and secondary care to access the quickest care, and not necessarily the right care at the right time, in line with the Irish government health reform plan (Burke et al., 2018). Identifying predictors of outcome (pain and function) at 12 months has the potential to inform decision making on the optimal patient pathway and trajectory of care by enabling the identification of those at risk of a poor outcome at 1 year, earlier in their journey. Burke S, Barry S, Siersbaek R, Johnston B, Ní Fhallúin M, Thomas S. Sláintecare - A ten-year plan to achieve universal healthcare in Ireland. Health Policy. 2018 Dec;122(12):1278-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.05.006 . Epub 2018 May 22. PMID: 29843901. Fennelly O, Blake C, FitzGerald O, Breen R, Ashton J, Brennan A, Caffrey A, Desmeules F, Cunningham C. Advanced practice physiotherapy-led triage in Irish orthopaedic and rheumatology services: national data audit. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Jun 1;19(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2106-7 . PMID: 29859072; PMCID: PMC5984783. Reviewer comment 2: Also, while the authors refer to previous SRs of predictors of pain and function in MSK conditions. It would be useful to know what type of patient population these relate to (primary care or secondary care). The manuscript has been updated to reflect this in the introduction section. Reviewer comment 3: It is stated that MSK triage clinics have not been studied, which is true, however this cohort are essentially very similar to cohort attending secondary care elective orthopaedic clinics, what are the main findings from these studies? As the focus of this study is on patients who do not receive specialist orthopaedic or rheumatology care, rather than all patients who attend elective orthopaedic clinics, the below sentence in the introduction has been reworded as follows for clarification. Additionally, we’re primarily interested in participants clinical course (i.e. healthcare utilisation) and outcomes over 1 year following their MSK triage appointment. The findings from our study will be discussed in comparison with pre-existing literature in the published paper. ‘H owever, currently, patient outcomes, prognostic stratification, and predictors of outcome up to 1-year later have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics , who do not require referral to specialist orthopaedic or rheumatology care, in Ireland or internationally’. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern o'leary h. Peer Review Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37418) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v1#referee-response-37418 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Samsson K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 01 Feb 2024 | for Version 1 Karin Samsson , University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden 0 Views copyright © 2024 Samsson K. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This is an important aspect to address in research, to improve on the knowledge regarding the patients that are referred for MSK triage. Furthermore, to be able to screen patients prior to referral could reduce waiting times as well as improve care on the right level. You state in the introduction that 71% of patients were discharged at their initial appointment and 23% referred to physiotherapy, which makes me wonder. The 71% who were discharged, do you think that they would have needed different care than what they received? And since this large number of patients were discharged, and not referred to physiotherapy, why do you think predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain. is important to investigate for this patients group? The aims are not consistently reported throughout the paper. You have a great number of predictors and outcomes, but I struggle to make them out clearly since they are inconsistently reported in introduction and various sections in the methods. It would be highly beneficial for the reader to have these clearly and consistently presented regarding what outcome you want to measure and what outcome measure you use. Furthermore, to use the same terms i.e. in some sections you use workers' sick leave, sick leave or work-related factors. Participants​​​ Regarding patients included in the study - who is responsible for deciding which patients are "unlikely to require consultant care" and based on what? Are the patients to be included in the study after the triage? When is the patient asked to participate? And why don’t you include the patients in need of orthopaedic surgeon to be able to investigate predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain for them as well? Considering that 71% are discharged, it would probably be quite beneficial to know if there is a difference between these two groups. Sample size There is no formal sample size calculation. Recruitment and data collection You state that the MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility – is this before the actual triage? I think this process needs to be clearly described (as also addressed in previous question). If I understand correctly you are collecting two written consents? What is the purpose of that? Why did you chose to have a teams or telephone data collection as well as questionnaires? Inconsistent reporting of outcomes collected and through what outcome measures, order and the use of abbreviations or not. Furthermore not clear which ones are collected via self-reported questionnaires vs telephone/teams. Furthermore, not all outcomes are included in the primary or secondary outcomes. The outcome health literacy is not mentioned or described prior to data collection. The whole section starting with “Pain hypersensitivity, measured by… / (Figure 1) seems more to belong in the introduction section. Outcomes Outcomes are not consistent with aims. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Partly Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Physiotherapist led orthopaedic triage. Have not focused on the statistics part as that is not my area of expertise. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 23 Jan 2025 Fiona Callan, School of Physiotherapy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland Thank you, Dr Samsson, for your time and expertise in reviewing our protocol. We greatly appreciate all your comments and suggested amendments. We have reviewed and addressed each point you have raised below, and amended the paper accordingly. Reviewer Comment 1: You state in the introduction that 71% of patients were discharged at their initial appointment and 23% referred to physiotherapy, which makes me wonder. The 71% who were discharged, do you think that they would have needed different care than what they received? And since this large number of patients were discharged, and not referred to physiotherapy, why do you think predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain is important to investigate for this patients group? Currently, we do not know from the literature why there is a high discharge rate, nor why a lower percentage are referred to physiotherapy. Historically waiting times to access primary care physiotherapy and secondary care services in Ireland (e.g. pain management, orthopaedics, rheumatology) are long, resulting in delays to patients accessing MSK care. It is hypothesised that many patients are referred for imaging, primary care physiotherapy and secondary care orthopaedics or rheumatology simultaneously in order to receive the quickest care in the absence of a resourced stepwise integrated care pathway. Therefore, we wanted to study the cohort of patients who attended secondary care MSK triage services and did not require surgical or medical input from the orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatologist to better understand their healthcare journey (healthcare utilisation), clinical outcomes (pain and function) and predictors of outcome. We have reflected the importance of this research study in the introduction section. Reviewer Comment 2: The aims are not consistently reported throughout the paper. We have updated and addressed the aims of our study in the introduction, methods and discussion sections. Reviewer comment 3: You have a great number of predictors and outcomes, but I struggle to make them out clearly since they are inconsistently reported in introduction and various sections in the methods. It would be highly beneficial for the reader to have these clearly and consistently presented regarding what outcome you want to measure and what outcome measure you use. Furthermore, to use the same terms i.e. in some sections you use workers' sick leave, sick leave or work-related factors. Primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and predictor variables are outlined in Table 1, along with their method of collection (e.g. Microsoft teams/telephone or REDCap/postal questionnaire). Reviewer comment 4: Regarding patients included in the study - who is responsible for deciding which patients are "unlikely to require consultant care" and based on what? Participants in this study will be recruited after attending a MSK triage clinic in a participating site. There, a MSK triage physiotherapist will triage the patient and decide if the patient requires consultant review for surgical or medical management, or alternative management options (e.g. discharge to GP, physiotherapy referral, referral for imaging, pain medicine referral etc.) as is their normal clinical practice. Only those patients who do not require consultant referral following MSK triage review are eligible for inclusion in this study. It’s at this point, once the decision for non-consultant care is decided and eligibility is determined, that participants are invited to participate in the study by the MSK triage physiotherapist. Reviewer comment 5: Are the patients to be included in the study after the triage? When is the patient asked to participate? And why don’t you include the patients in need of orthopaedic surgeon to be able to investigate predictors of clinical outcome and prognostic factors for MSK pain for them as well? Considering that 71% are discharged, it would probably be quite beneficial to know if there is a difference between these two groups. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the patient journey through MSK triage services in Ireland of those who, in reality may never have needed to attend secondary care. Whilst lots of research has reported the percentage of patients who are discharged from MSK triage, without needing specialist referral, there is limited research on their outcomes up to one–year. Therefore, we excluded those patients who required onward referral to consultant orthopaedic surgeons or rheumatologists, as they may often require surgical management (e.g. joint replacement surgery) or medical management of a systemic condition (e.g. inflammatory arthritis). There is also a cohort of patients, whom following GP referral, are seen directly by the consultant, following triaging of referrals. This cohort of patients do not attend MSK triage and are instead managed directly by the consultant. Therefore, we wanted to focus on the cohort of patients who did not require consultant led surgical or medical management to evaluate their outcomes (pain and function) and healthcare utilisation following MSK triage and identify predictors of outcome, which may help inform the development of modernised care pathways for the management of musculoskeletal pain. Reviewer comment 6: You state that the MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility – is this before the actual triage? I think this process needs to be clearly described (as also addressed in previous question). This has been updated in the ‘Recruitment and Data Collection’ section to say “The MSK triage physiotherapist will identify and screen prospective participants for eligibility following their MSK triage appointment”. Therefore, eligibility can only be determined once the triage appointment is complete. Reviewer comment 7: There is no formal sample size calculation. Patient outcomes and potential explanatory variables associated with outcomes up to 1-year after musculoskeletal triage review have not been consistently studied in patients attending MSK triage clinics in Ireland or internationally, and thus there is limited information on potential explanatory variables associated with pain. We agree the number "10" is somewhat arbitrary, and its applicability can vary depending on the context and characteristics of the data (Vittinghoff and Mcculloch, 2007, Peduzzi et al., 1996). We used this as a guideline to the minimum sample size required, acknowledging practical constraints, and carefully considering explanatory variables to explore in this study based on theory and previous research. Please also refer to our response to Reviewer 1 regarding the sample size query Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(6):710-8. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373-9. Reviewer comment 8: If I understand correctly you are collecting two written consents? What is the purpose of that? A cooling off period is required between the time of introduction to the study and the obtaining of informed consent. The researcher (FC) is not present at the MSK triage clinics and due to the busy nature of these clinics, it would not be feasible to allow for a cooling off period on the day. Therefore, MSK triage physios, upon introducing the study to the patient obtain consent to contact(i.e. be contacted by the research team) from interested patients. This allows the researcher (FC) to contact the participant the following day (12-24 hours later) to obtain informed consent and recruit participants to the study. This is in line with our research ethics requirements. Reviewer comment 9: Why did you chose to have a teams or telephone data collection as well as questionnaires? The patient demographic attending MSK triage clinics have varied information technology (IT) skills, therefore we decided it would be best to offer those with limited IT skills the ability to still participate by allowing for telephone call assessments and paper questionnaires. This sentence in the recruitment and data collection section has been updated as follows: ‘This data will be collected through Research Electronic Data capture (REDCap) software ( 28 , 29 ), hosted at RCSI, on their personal device, or via posted paper questionnaires to facilitate participants with limited information technology skills .’ Reviewer comment 10: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes collected and through what outcome measures, order and the use of abbreviations or not. Furthermore not clear which ones are collected via self-reported questionnaires vs telephone/teams. Furthermore, not all outcomes are included in the primary or secondary outcomes. All predictor variables and outcomes are outlined in table 1, along with their method of collection (e.g. Microsoft teams/telephone or REDCap/postal questionnaire). Consistency in reporting of outcomes/variables and the measures used has been revised in the new manuscript. Reviewer comment 11: The outcome health literacy is not mentioned or described prior to data collection. Health literacy is now included in the introduction and data collection sections along with table 1. Reviewer comment 12: The whole section starting with “Pain hypersensitivity, measured by… / (Figure 1) seems more to belong in the introduction section. This was included to further describe the quantitative sensory testing component of this project. Reference to altered pain processing is also included in the introduction section. Reviewer comment 13: Outcomes are not consistent with aims. We have revised our aims to align with our outcomes in the revised manuscript. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Samsson K. Peer Review Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37424) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v1#referee-response-37424 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Aryal S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 16 Jan 2024 | for Version 1 Subhash Aryal , University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA 0 Views copyright © 2024 Aryal S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I focused on the statistical analysis component of the manuscript. Here are my specific concerns regarding this manuscript. 1) There is no formal sample size calculation. Rule of thumb of 10 events per variable is used. Software including PASS, SAS can actually provide a more formal sample size estimation. 2) The authors propose using repeated measures multivariable regression. I recommend being more specific in terms of whether it is random-effects model, covariance pattern model or marginal GEE model. 3) The authors have adjusted sample size to account for attrition. But missing data is not addressed in the statistical analysis plan. 4) If the authors are going to run separate models for baseline predictors of pain and function outcomes at three, six and the primary timepoint of 12 months, they should adjust the statistical significance level to adjust for inflated type I error rate. 5) There is no detail provided regarding the proposed Latent Class Analysis. 6) On page 4, column 2 the authors state "..... multiple MSK conditions (e.g., osteoarthritis, low back pain, whiplash, post-operative pain). It is quite possible that a large majority with post-operative pain may be lost to follow-up at 12 months. If the participant's pain is not chronic, they may drop-out of the study. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described? Yes Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others? Partly Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format? Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Biostatist I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Aryal S. Peer Review Report For: ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating prognostic factors, healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes (ADAPT MSK) - a cohort study protocol. [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations] . HRB Open Res 2025, 6 :73 ( https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15061.r37570) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v1#referee-response-37570 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with HRB Open Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Callan F et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73", templates : { twitter : "ADvAnced PhysioTherapy in MuSculosKeletal Triage: Investigating.... Callan F et al., published by " + "@HRBOpenRes" + ", https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-73/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/13769/15444") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "15444"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "44938": 0, "44939": 0, "44940": 0, "37918": 0, "37919": 0, "37920": 0, "37921": 0, "37922": 0, "37923": 0, "37924": 0, "37925": 0, "37926": 0, "37927": 0, "45479": 0, "45480": 0, "37417": 0, "45481": 0, "37418": 17, "45482": 0, "37419": 0, "45483": 0, "37420": 0, "45484": 0, "37421": 0, "45485": 0, "37422": 0, "45486": 0, "37423": 0, "37424": 11, "45237": 0, "45238": 0, "45239": 0, "45240": 0, "45241": 5, "45242": 0, "45243": 0, "37568": 0, "37569": 0, "37570": 22, "37571": 0, "37572": 0, "37573": 0, "37574": 0, "37575": 0, "37576": 0, "37577": 0, "45019": 0, "45020": 0, "45021": 0, "45022": 0, "45023": 0, "45024": 0, "45025": 0, "45026": 0, "45027": 0, "45028": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "3da8c527-0b69-4b4f-a801-68a66951c083"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); Are you a HRB-funded researcher? Submission to HRB Open Research is open to all HRB grantholders or people working on a HRB-funded/co-funded grant on or since 1 January 2017. Sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from HRB Open Research. First Name * You must provide your first name Last Name * You must provide your last name Email * You must provide a valid email address Institution You must provide an institution. Submit Thank you! We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to HRB Open Research HRB Open Research Browse How to Publish About Contact RSS Cookie Notice Privacy Notice Legal Submit Your Research © F1000 Research Limited and its licensors ISSN 2515-4826 | Legal background var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "hrb", displayName: "HRB Open Research", hostName: "hrbopenresearch.org", id: "5", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]" }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); }); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a0104132bd7109d6',t:'MTc3OTY2NzE3Mg=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();