Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31210796›Full record

ArticleShoulder & elbow2019

Management of tennis elbow: a survey of UK clinical practice.

Marcus Bateman, Andrew G Titchener, David I Clark, Amol A Tambe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Shoulder & elbow, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Lateral elbow tendinosis: a review of diagnosis and management in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    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

4 authors.

Marcus BatemanOrthopaedic Department, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3203-506X
Andrew G TitchenerOrthopaedic Department, Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.
David I ClarkOrthopaedic Department, 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

backgroundTennis elbow is a common condition in the UK but there are no guidelines on how best to manage the condition. The purpose of the present study was to establish the current UK practice in managing patients with chronic tennis elbow.

methodsA cross-sectional online survey of UK surgeons and therapists was conducted in June 2017.

resultsIn total, 275 responses were received, the majority from consultant surgeons and experienced physiotherapists. In total, 81% recommended exercise-based physiotherapy as the first-line intervention. Second-line treatments varied widely, with corticosteroid injections being the most popular (27%), followed by shockwave therapy, platelet-rich plasma injection, surgery, acupuncture and a wait-and-see policy.

conclusionsThere is wide variability of treatments offered when physiotherapy fails patients with tennis elbow. The majority of second-line interventions lack evidence to support their use and, in the case of corticosteroid injections, may even be harmful in the long term. There is a clear need for national guidance based on best evidence to aid clinicians in their treatment approach.

Indexed as

elbowinjectionphysiotherapysurgerytennis

Identifiers

PMID31210796
PMCPMC6555112

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.