Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20003341›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2009

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the management of tennis elbow: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial: the TATE trial (ISRCTN 87141084).

Linda S Chesterton, Daniëlle A van der Windt, Julius Sim, Martyn Lewis, Christian D Mallen, Elizabeth E Mason, Catherine Warlow, Kanchan Vohora, Elaine M Hay

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Linda S ChestertonArthritis Research Campaign National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK. j.sim@keele.ac.uk
Daniëlle A van der Windt
Julius Sim
Martyn Lewis
Christian D Mallen
Elizabeth E Mason
Catherine Warlow
Kanchan Vohora
Elaine M Hay
Keele University · GB

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 18139Department of Health PB-PG-0407-13189
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTennis elbow is a common and often extremely painful musculoskeletal condition, which has considerable impact on individuals as well as economic implications for healthcare utilization and absence from work. Many management strategies have been studied in clinical trials. Whilst corticosteroid injections offer short term pain relief, this treatment is unpleasant and is used with caution due to an associated high risk of pain recurrence in the long term. Systematic reviews conclude that there is no clear and effective treatment for symptoms of pain in the first 6 weeks of the condition. There is a clear need for an intervention that is acceptable to patients and provides them with effective short-term pain relief without increasing the risk of recurrence. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an inexpensive, non-invasive, non-pharmacological form of analgesia that is commonly used in the treatment of pain. TENS has very few contraindications and is simple to apply. It also benefits from being patient controlled, thereby promoting self-management. This study aims to assess the effectiveness, in terms of pain relief, and cost-effectiveness of a self-management package of treatment that includes TENS. METHODS/

designThe design of the study will be a two-group pragmatic randomized clinical trial. 240 participants aged 18 years and over with tennis elbow will be recruited from 20-30 GP practices in Staffordshire, UK. Participants are to be randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either primary care management (standard GP consultation, medication, advice and education) or primary care management with the addition of TENS, over 6 weeks. Our primary outcome measure is average intensity of elbow pain in the past 24 hours (0-10 point numerical rating scale) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes include pain and limitation of function, global assessment of change, days of sick leave, illness perceptions, and overall health status. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. Patient adherence and satisfaction data will be collected at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months by postal questionnaire. A diary will also be completed for the first 2 weeks of treatment. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses will be carried out using an intention-to-treat approach as the primary analysis. DISCUSSION: This paper presents detail on the rationale, design, methods and operational aspects of the trial.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials. ISRCTN87141084.

Indexed as

Transcutaneous Electric Nerve StimulationAdolescentAdultCombined Modality TherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleHealth Care CostsHealth StatusHumansMalePainPain MeasurementPerceptionRecovery of FunctionResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID20003341
PMCPMC2797760
OpenAlexW2165590061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.