SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Low quality evidence supports surgery for gluteal tendon tears, no non-surgical evidence was identified: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundGluteal tendon tears (GTT) are associated with significant morbidity, similar to end stage, hip osteoarthritis. To date, there is unclear evidence as to what best management for GTT constitutes, and what are the subsequent outcomes for the different management approaches (surgical, non-surgical). The purpose of this systematic review is to document treatments, synthesise evidence, and assess the quality of available evidence regarding the treatments and outcomes associated with symptomatic GTT.
methodsA systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Six databases were searched, from inception to November 2024 (Cinahl, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline, ClinicalTrial.gov, Cochrane). Inclusion criteria were any research on the management of GTT, exclusion criteria were any other intra-articular pathology. The primary outcome measures were pre-and post-intervention measures for Quality of Life (QoL)(iHOT-12/33) and pain severity (visual analogue scale (VAS)) and were compared to minimally clinically important change. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was used to assess methodological quality and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate certainty of evidence. Datum and graphs were synthesised using RevMan software, in accordance with Cochrane guidelines.
resultsIn total 1,584 participants across the 38 papers involving 49 studies met inclusion criteria. All investigated surgery – 35 papers were case-series and three were cohort studies. No randomised controlled studies were identified. Interventions were sub-grouped as: Endoscopic Repair (n = 507), Open Repair (n = 950) and Gluteus maximus transfer (n = 127). 58% of studies were categorised as low quality, scoring < 65% on the JBI critical appraisal tool. High heterogeneity (clinical and methodological) was observed, and very low certainty of evidence was found according to GRADE assessment. Surgical intervention for people with GTT was associated with improvement of QoL (range, 22.1/100 to 48.8/100) and pain severity (range, -7.0/10 to -1.2/10) at minimum 12-month follow-up.
conclusionVery low quality and certainty of evidence found surgical intervention for GTT was associated with improvements in QoL and pain severity. No non-surgical treatments studies for this condition were identified.
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.