Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34996788›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Making should

Ole Marius Ekeberg, Stein Jarle Pedersen, Bård Natvig, Jens Ivar Brox, Eva Kristin Biringer, Silje Endresen Reme, Kaia Beck Engebretsen, Pål Joranger, Ibrahimu Mdala, Niels Gunnar Juel

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04806191 (Making Shoulder Pain Simple in General Practice-implementing an Evidenced Based Guideline for Shoulder Pain, a Hybrid Design Cluster Randomised Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT04806191 nacompletednot on this map

Making Shoulder Pain Simple in General Practice-implementing an Evidenced Based Guideline for Shoulder Pain, a Hybrid Design Cluster Randomised Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OsloRan2021 to 2024Enrolled160ConditionsShoulder Pain, Frozen Shoulder, Rotator Cuff Tendinosis, MyalgiaArmsEvidence based treatment strategy, Targeted patient information package, Treatment as usual (TAU)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Selection and reporting of usual care comparators when designing primary care trials of complex health interventions: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. 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

10 authors.

Ole Marius EkebergDepartment of Research and innovation, Helse Fonna HF, Haugesund, Norway.
Stein Jarle PedersenDepartment of General Practice, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Bård NatvigDepartment of General Practice, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Jens Ivar BroxDepartment of Physical Medicine and rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway j.i.brox@medisin.uio.no.ORCID 0000-0002-2507-1812
Eva Kristin BiringerDepartment of Research and innovation, Helse Fonna HF, Haugesund, Norway.
Silje Endresen RemeDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Kaia Beck EngebretsenDepartment of Physical Medicine and rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Pål JorangerDepartment of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
Ibrahimu MdalaDepartment of General Practice, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Niels Gunnar JuelDepartment of General Practice, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResearch suggests that current care for shoulder pain is not in line with the best available evidence. This project aims to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and the implementation of an evidence-based guideline for shoulder pain in general practice in Norway. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial with a hybrid design assessing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and the effect of the implementation strategy of a guideline-based intervention in general practice. We will recruit at least 36 general practitioners (GPs) and randomise the time of cross-over from treatment as usual to the implemented intervention. The intervention includes an educational outreach visit to the GPs, a computerised decision tool for GPs and a self-management application for patients. We will measure outcomes at patient and GP levels using self-report questionnaires, focus group interviews and register based data. The primary outcome measure is the patient-reported Shoulder Pain and Disability Index measured at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include the EuroQol Quality of Life Measure (EQ5D-5L), direct and indirect costs, patient's global perceived effect of treatment outcome, Pain Self-Efficacy and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. We will evaluate the implementation process with focus on adherence to guideline treatment. We will do a cost-minimisation analysis based on direct and selected indirect costs and a cost-utility analysis based on EQ5D-5L. We will use mixed effect models to analyse primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics-South East Norway (ref. no: 2019/104). Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal in accordance with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04806191.

Indexed as

General PracticeShoulder PainCost-Benefit AnalysisFamily PracticeHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicmusculoskeletal disordersprimary careshoulder

Identifiers

PMID34996788
PMCPMC8744118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.