ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2019
Clinical comparative effectiveness of acupuncture versus manual therapy treatment of lateral epicondylitis: feasibility randomized clinical trial.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02321696 (Clinical Comparative Effect of Physiotherapy or Acupuncture Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis; a Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Clinical Comparative Effect of Physiotherapy or Acupuncture Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis; a Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Exercise therapy for tendinopathy: a mixed-methods evidence synthesis exploring feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Sessions of acupuncture and nutritional therapy evaluation for atrial fibrillation (Santé-AF): a randomised feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
- Retracted: Effect of Sham Acupuncture on Chronic Pain: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2023Article
- ADSC-Based Cell Therapies for Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Review of Recent Clinical Trials.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Position statement: nonoperative management of lateral epicondylitis in adults.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLateral epicondylitis (LE) is a challenging condition for clinicians, and research has yet not proven the superiority of one specific treatment approach. However, manual therapy (elbow mobilization) in addition to eccentric exercise has been found to be superior to exercise alone. As well, acupuncture is effective in short-term pain relief when compared with sham treatment, but there is little knowledge on the comparative effectiveness of manual therapy and acupuncture treatment of LE in terms of pain relief. The primary objective of this pilot trial was to assess the feasibility (retention and adherence rates) of performing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to explore the clinical effectiveness of acupuncture and manual therapy treatment of LE.
methodsThis pilot trial took place in an outpatient interdisciplinary institute of sports medicine and rehabilitation in Oslo, Norway. Thirty-six adults with clinically diagnosed LE were randomly allocated into one of three groups: eccentric exercise alone, eccentric exercise plus acupuncture, or eccentric exercise plus manual therapy for a 12-week treatment period. Primary outcomes were patient retention and adherence rates. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported pain (NRS), level of disability (Quick-DASH), and participant's satisfaction with treatment and global perceived effect.
resultsNine (69%) patients in the acupuncture group completed the 1-year follow-up, compared to eight (67%) in the manual therapy group and five (45%) in exercise alone. Our goal was to demonstrate a retention rate above 80% to avoid serious threats to validity, but the result was lower than expected. The majority of participants (64%) in both treatment groups received only three-treatment sessions; the reasons included non-attendance or recovery from pain. Secondary outcomes support the rationale for conduction of an RCT. There were no adverse advents related to study participation.
conclusionsBased on differences in pain relief between groups, patient retention, and adherence rates, an RCT seems to be feasible to assess treatment effectiveness more precisely. In a future definitive trial, greater dropout may be reduced by maintaining contact with the participants in the exercise alone group throughout the intervention, and objective assessments might be considered.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02321696.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.