Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14965386›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2004

What influences participants' treatment preference and can it influence outcome? Results from a primary care-based randomised trial for shoulder pain.

Elaine Thomas, Peter R Croft, Susan M Paterson, Krysia Dziedzic, Elaine M Hay

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Comparison of two recruitment strategies for patients with chronic shoulder complaints.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elaine ThomasPrimary Care Sciences Research Centre, Keele University, Keele, North Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK. e.thomas@keele.ac.uk
Peter R Croft
Susan M Paterson
Krysia Dziedzic
Elaine M Hay
Keele University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn randomised clinical trials (RCTs), outcome may be influenced by the opinions of the participants about the efficacy of treatments.

aimTo examine how initial treatment preferences of participants in a shoulder pain trial affected functional outcome and future treatment preferences. DESIGN OF STUDY: Observational cohort study nested within a multicentre, pragmatic RCT of steroid injection versus physiotherapy for unilateral shoulder pain.

settingNine general practices in north Staffordshire.

methodTwo hundred and seven adults were randomised in the trial. Disability scores and preferences of the participants for the trial treatments were elicited at two points: prior to randomisation and 6 months post-randomisation. A good functional outcome was defined as at least a halving in the disability score at the 6 months follow-up point.

resultsPre-randomisation preferences were: 40% for injection and 20% for physiotherapy, and 40% gave no preference. A good outcome was achieved in a higher percentage of participants who gave a pre-randomisation treatment preference compared with those who did not (62% compared with 48% percentage difference = 14%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1 to 27%) with similar percentages in each preferred treatment group. However, receiving the preferred treatment did not confer any additional benefit in those who expressed a preference (receiving preferred treatment = 56%; not receiving preferred treatment = 69%). At 6 months post-randomisation, participants with a good, as opposed to poor, outcome were more likely to report as their preferred treatment the one to which they had been randomised, irrespective of pre-randomisation preference and whether the preferred treatment was received.

conclusionThis analysis suggests that preferences prior to treatment can affect outcome, but that treatment outcome is a stronger influence on post-treatment preferences. We present some empirical evidence to support the statement that treatment preferences can have important effects on the results of RCTs.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdrenal Cortex HormonesChoice BehaviorCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularMaleMiddle AgedPhysical Therapy ModalitiesPrimary Health CareShoulder PainTreatment OutcomeAdrenal Cortex Hormones

Identifiers

PMID14965386
PMCPMC1314800
OpenAlexW1772147917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.