ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2024
Comparison of the effects of ultrasound-guided steroid injection and anatomic landmark-guided injection on pain and disability in greater trochanteric pain syndrome.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) is a prevalent condition that can significantly affect patient comfort and function. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of ultrasound (USG)-guided and anatomic landmark-guided corticosteroid injections in managing GTPS. Methods: Patients diagnosed with GTPS received either USG or anatomic landmark-guided corticosteroid injections. Pain scores (Visual Analog Scale, VAS) and functional outcomes (modified Harris Hip Score, HHS) were assessed at baseline, 1 month, and 1 year postinjection. Cost-effectiveness was calculated using public and private payor pricing from June 2024. Results: Both treatment groups exhibited significant improvements in pain and function. The USG group demonstrated greater initial improvements at the 1-month mark, particularly in VAS activity and HHS. However, these differences between the groups converged over time, with similar long-term outcomes observed in these parameters. The USG-guided injections showed more pronounced initial benefits, especially for patients with higher initial pain levels and lower functional scores. USG was found to be more cost-effective in terms of HHS, but not VAS measures. Conclusion: While both USG and anatomic landmark-guided injections are effective for managing GTPS, USG-guided injections may provide greater initial relief in pain and function, particularly for patients with higher initial pain levels. USG does not demonstrate longterm superiority over anatomic injections. The study underscores the importance of evaluating long-term outcomes to comprehensively assess the sustained effectiveness of different treatment strategies for GTPS. Level of Evidence: Level III, Therapeutic study.
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.