ArticleJournal of ultrasound2024
Sonographic pathoanatomy of greater trochanteric pain syndrome.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardized ultrasound assessment with a classification system in greater trochanteric pain syndrome: a pilot study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- The Sonographic Evaluation of Abductor Injury After Intramedullary Nailing for the Hip Fractures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Utilization of Diagnostic Musculoskeletal Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Gluteus Medius Tendon Pathology: A Perspective for Rehabilitation Providers.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo identify and highlight pertinent US features that could serve as imaging biomarkers to describe different patient phenotypes, within Great Trochanteric Pain Syndrome (GTPS) clinical diagnosis. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing ultrasound we evaluated eighty-eight clinically diagnosed patients with GTPS, for tendon matrix changes and calcium deposits in the gluteus medius (superoposterior and lateral aspects) and in the gluteus minimus. Peritrochanteric examination included fascia lata, trochanteric bursa, cortical irregularities and the presence of enthesophytes. The association of pathological changes with pain and functionality was evaluated using multivariate regression models.
resultsOut of the 88 patients, 86 examinations (97.7%) detected gluteus medius tendinopathy, and 54 patients (61.4%) had gluteus minimus tendinopathy in addition. Calcium deposits were present in 97.7% of patients, associated with tenderness (p = 0.009), and most often located in the gluteus medius rather than in the gluteus minimus (p = 0.014); calcifications were associated with tendon thickness (p = 0.042), hypoechogenicity (p = 0.005) and the presence of partial tears (p = 0.030). Bursa swelling occurred in 36 patients (40.9%); multivariate regression models predicted less pain in patients with bursa distension (p = 0.008) and dysfunction in patients with gluteal muscle atrophy (p = 0.001) and loss of fibrillar pattern in the gluteus medius (p = 0.002).
conclusionGTPS involves both degenerative calcifying gluteal tendinopathy and alterations in the peritrochanteric space associated with physical function and pain. The severity of GTPS can be assessed using ultrasound imaging biomarkers.
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.