ArticleBMJ open2021
Perspectives and experiences of people who were randomly assigned to wait-and-see approach in a gluteal tendinopathy trial: a qualitative follow-up study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the Beliefs, Perceptions, and Experiences of Individuals With Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography of Qualitative Studies.Physical therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Exploring User Visions for Modeling mHealth Apps Toward Supporting Patient-Parent-Clinician Collaboration and Shared Decision-making When Treating Adolescent Knee Pain in General Practice: Workshop Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- An EDucation and eXercise intervention for gluteal tendinopathy in an Irish setting: a protocol for a feasibility randomised clinical trial (LEAP-Ireland RCT).HRB open research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore participants' perspectives on, and experiences of, being assigned to a wait-and-see arm of a gluteal tendinopathy trial.
designDescriptive qualitative.
settingGeneral community in Brisbane and Melbourne, Australia.
participantsFifteen participants who had been randomly allocated to the wait-and-see group in a recent parallel group superiority clinical trial. That trial compared the wait-and-see approach to a physiotherapist-led education plus exercise approach, and an ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection. The wait-and-see approach involved one physiotherapy session in which participants received reassurance, general advice and encouragement to stay active for the management of gluteal tendinopathy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Semistructured interviews were conducted by four interviewers in person or over the internet, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and data analysed using an inductive thematic approach.
resultsFive themes were extracted from the interview transcripts: (1) Feeling disenfranchised by being assigned to a wait-and-see approach; (2) the importance of having a clinical and imaging diagnosis during screening for inclusion into the clinical trial; (3) feelings regarding the effectiveness of the approach; (4) the convenient and easy to follow nature of the wait-and-see approach and (5) the connotation of wait-and-see not always being perceived as an intervention.
conclusionsParticipants found the wait-and-see approach convenient and easy to follow, yet almost always felt disenfranchised that nothing was being done. Participants highlighted the importance of a definite clinical and imaging diagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12612001126808; Post-results.
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.