SynthesisClinical rehabilitation2025
The efficacy of gluteal tendinopathy treatments: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo guide clinical practice by synthesising robust evidence concerning gluteal tendinopathy management.Data sourcesFive electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2024 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medium or high quality, and low risk of bias, that measured pain and function in adults with clinically diagnosed gluteal tendinopathy.Review methodsSystematic review reporting proof of efficacy. PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 were used to assess internal validity and risk of bias. Efficacy was determined by comparison to minimal intervention. Methodological heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis, but we calculated standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for individual study arms to facilitate comparison between interventions.ResultsFour interventions from four RCTs demonstrated efficacy. Exercise and education has moderate strength evidence of a medium effect on pain (SMD = 0.95; 95% CI [0.58, 1.33]) and function (SMD = 0.91; 95% CI [0.53, 1.28]) in the short term with small effects in the medium and long term. Corticosteroid injection has moderate strength evidence of a small effect on pain (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI [0.16, 0.86]) in the short term. Platelet-rich plasma injection was superior in the short term compared to corticosteroid injection for function (SMD = 0.46; 95% CI [0.00, 0.91]). For pain, focused shockwave therapy (f-ESWT) demonstrates superiority in the long term (SMD = 5.77; 95% CI [4.84, 6.71]) compared to corticosteroid injection.ConclusionsExercise and education can be cautiously recommended as the core approach for pain management and function, potentially supplemented by corticosteroid or f-ESWT, while definitive trials of promising interventions are needed to derive robust practice recommendations.
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.