ArticleRheumatology international2022
Intra-articular therapies: patient preferences and professional practices in European countries.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What factors influence pain scores following Corticosteroid injection in patients with Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome? A systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- EULAR recommendations for intra-articular therapies.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2021Guideline
- Rapid pain response following intra-articular steroid injections in rheumatoid arthritis finger joints: a prospective study with daily patient self-assessment.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Injury and local injection and the risk of foot/ankle osteoarthritis: a case-control study in retired UK male professional footballers.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- The evolving landscape of minimally invasive procedures in musculoskeletal diseases-part I.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Knowledge and practices of young general practitioners with regard to knee and epidural infiltrations in Cameroon.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Corticosteroid Injections for Frozen Shoulder: A Global Online Survey of Health Professionals' Current Practice and Opinion.Musculoskeletal care · 2025Article
- Pediatric rheumatology on social media: experts ensure accuracy, public drives engagement - a comparative analysis.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Patient preferences for conservative treatment of shoulder pain: a discrete choice experiment.Family practice · 2025Article
- Advances in injectable drug delivery systems for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.Biomaterials translational · 2025Review
- Ultrasonography in rheumatology: time to learn from patient views.Clinical rheumatology · 2023Observational
- Composing On-Program Triggers and On-Demand Stimuli into Biosensor Drug Carriers in Drug Delivery Systems for Programmable Arthritis Therapy.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess patient perspective and professional practice of intraarticular therapies (IATs) across Europe, an expert international multidisciplinary panel designed two open web-based surveys: one targeting people who had experienced at least two IATs (44 items); and one targeting health care providers (HCPs) (160 items). Surveys were disseminated via patient and professional associations and social media. A descriptive analysis was performed. The surveys were answered by 200 patients and 186 HCPs from 26 countries, showing that IAT is routinely performed by rheumatologists (97%) and orthopaedic surgeons (89%), with specific training being compulsory in a few countries. The most frequent indications for IAT are arthritis (76%), osteoarthritis (74%), crystal arthritis (71%) and bursitis (70%); the most frequently injected joints are knee (78%) and shoulder (70%); and the most used compounds are glucocorticoids. The majority of HCPs report informing patients about side-effects (73%), benefits (72%), and the nature of the procedure (72%), which coincides with 27% of patients reporting that they had not been informed about benefits or potential complications of IATs; 73% of patients had not been asked whether they wanted an anaesthetic. Few HCPs (10%) obtain written consent (56% get oral consent, being mandatory for 32%), a procedure deemed necessary by 41% of the patients. 50% of patients reported a clear benefit of IAT and 20% experienced complications including pain, impaired mobility, rashes, or swelling. In summary, the practice of IAT is variable across Europe, and although patients perceive it as relatively safe and usually effective procedure, some gaps were identified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34761277What 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.