Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27872111›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Ultrasound imaging to tailor the treatment of acute shoulder pain: a randomised controlled trial in general practice.

Ramon P G Ottenheijm, Jochen W L Cals, Bjorn Winkens, René E Weijers, Rob A de Bie, Geert-Jan Dinant

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Role of Ultrasound in the Detection of Rotator-Cuff Syndrome: An Observational Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019
    Observational
  9. [Correlation analysis between rotator cuff tear and the superior migration of humeral head].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Ramon P G OttenheijmDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jochen W L CalsDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bjorn WinkensDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
René E WeijersDepartment of Radiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rob A de BieDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Geert-Jan DinantDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the clinical effectiveness of ultrasound tailored treatment in patients with acute subacromial disorders.

designPragmatic randomised controlled trial.

settingDutch general practice.

participantsPatients aged 18-65 years with acute (duration <3 months) unilateral shoulder pain and no previous treatment, in whom the general practitioner suspected a subacromial disorder was enrolled.

interventionsAll patients underwent ultrasound imaging of the affected shoulder. Patients who were still symptomatic after a qualification period of 2 weeks with standard treatment were randomised to treatment tailored to ultrasound diagnosis (disclosure of the ultrasound diagnosis) or usual care (non-disclosure of the ultrasound diagnosis). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient-perceived recovery using the Global Perceived Effect questionnaire at 1 year.

results129 patients were included. 18 patients recovered during the 2-week qualification period, resulting in 111 randomised patients; 56 were allocated to ultrasound tailored treatment and 55 to usual care. After 1 year, no statistically significant differences in recovery were found between the ultrasound tailored treatment group (72.5% (37/51)) and the usual care group (60% (30/50), OR 2.24 (95% CI 0.72 to 6.89; p=0.16)). Also, healthcare use was similar.

conclusionsThis study has shown no clinically significant difference in the primary outcome measure between the ultrasound tailored treatment and usual care groups. Furthermore, there was no overall difference in healthcare resources used between groups. Although no formal cost data are included, one can only assume that the ultrasound examinations are additional costs for the intervention group, which cannot be justified in routine practice based on this trial. Based on this study, no change in current pragmatic guidelines to incorporate early ultrasound imaging can be recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR2403; Results.

Indexed as

UltrasonographyAcute DiseaseAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGeneral PracticeHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsShoulder PainSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeDiagnosisGeneral practiceTreatmentUltrasound imaging

Identifiers

PMID27872111
PMCPMC5128954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.