Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39441848›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis: A qualitative study of patients' and clinicians' experiences.

Andrew J Moore, Cecily K Palmer, Karen L Barker, Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Andy Judge, Vikki Wylde, Michael R Whitehouse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

7 authors.

Andrew J MooreUniversity of Bristol, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3185-1599
Cecily K PalmerUniversity of Bristol, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Karen L BarkerOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Rachael Gooberman-HillUniversity of Bristol, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Andy JudgeUniversity of Bristol, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Vikki WyldeUniversity of Bristol, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Michael R WhitehouseUniversity of Bristol, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOsteoarthritis is a leading cause of joint pain and disability. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACs) are often used in primary care once other recommended treatments have failed. Evidence shows that IACs provide short-term relief of osteoarthritis symptoms, yet little is known about patients' and primary care clinicians' experiences and beliefs about their use. We explored patients' and primary care clinicians' views about IACs, including the benefits, disadvantages, perceived risks of treatment, when they are used, and factors that affect decision-making.

methodsWe conducted individual interviews with patients and primary care clinicians and used inductive thematic analysis to investigate their views and experiences of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis (IACs).

findingsWe interviewed 38 patients and 19 primary care clinicians. We identified 6 patient themes: variation in access; awareness of IACs; views of risk and trust; effectiveness of IACs; variation in onset and effect duration; and an alternative to undesirable treatments. In the interviews with clinicians, we identified an overarching theme of caution and competence, which included eight subthemes: confidence and (dis)comfort with practical procedures; risk of adverse outcomes; training; uncertainty about evidence and guidelines; technical uncertainties; IACs use on the osteoarthritis pathway; perceived benefits and impacts of IACs; and the possibility of placebo.

conclusionPatients and clinicians valued IACs' potential to relieve symptoms and improve quality of life. Variability in patients' access to treatment appears related to clinicians' confidence in delivering injections and their concerns about the evidence base. Variation in dose frequency and timing reflect clinicians' uncertainty about current guidance. Despite variation in effectiveness patients preferred IACs to other forms of pain medication and to delay or avoid surgery. IACs were mostly used as an adjunct treatment before surgery was offered. These findings can inform further research into the effectiveness of IACs and improvements in information and guidance.

Indexed as

Adrenal Cortex HormonesOsteoarthritisQualitative ResearchAdultAgedFemaleHumansInjections, Intra-ArticularMaleMiddle AgedAdrenal Cortex Hormones

Identifiers

PMID39441848
PMCPMC11498725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.