Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30719096›Full record

ReviewShoulder & elbow2019

Surgery for tennis elbow: a systematic review.

Marcus Bateman, Chris Littlewood, Beth Rawson, Amol A Tambe

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Shoulder & elbow, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Tennis elbow.Shoulder & elbow · 2019
    Review
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

4 authors.

Marcus BatemanOrthopaedic Department, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3203-506X
Chris LittlewoodArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences and Keele Clinical Trials Unit, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Beth RawsonLibrary Services, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.
Amol A TambeOrthopaedic Department, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no consensus on the most suitable treatment for tennis elbow but, in the USA, surgical intervention is increasing despite a lack of supportive research evidence. The aim of this systematic review was to provide a balanced update based on all relevant published randomized controlled trials conducted to date.

methodsAn electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI, AMED, PsycINFO, HBE, HMIC, PubMed, TRIP, Dynamed Plus and The Cochrane Library was complemented by hand searching. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and data were synthesized narratively, based on levels of evidence, as a result of heterogeneity.

resultsTwelve studies of poor methodological quality were included. The available data suggest that surgical interventions for tennis elbow are no more effective than nonsurgical and sham interventions. Surgical technique modifications may enhance effectiveness compared to traditional methods but have not been tested against a placebo.

conclusionsCurrent research evidence suggests that surgery for tennis elbow is no more effective than nonsurgical treatment based on evidence with significant methodological limitations. Given the recalcitrant nature of tennis elbow for some patients, further research in the form of a high-quality placebo-controlled surgical trial with an additional conservative arm is required to usefully inform clinical practice.

Indexed as

elbowsurgerysystematic reviewtennis

Identifiers

PMID30719096
PMCPMC6348580

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.