ArticleShoulder & elbow2026
Physiotherapists' use of outcome measures in the assessment of lateral elbow tendinopathy: An international online survey.
Article in Shoulder & elbow, 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
Objective: To examine the frequency of use and establish routine clinical practice of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), performance-based OMs and clinician-reported OMs in the assessment of a suspected case of lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET). Methods: Physiotherapists from eight countries completed an anonymous online survey, rating their frequency of use (never, rarely, sometimes, often and always) for unidimensional PROMs, multidimensional PROMs, performance-based OMs and clinician-reported OMs. To establish clinical practices, responses were dichotomised into routine (≥70% often/always) and not-routine (≥70% sometimes/rarely/never); items below both thresholds were classified as neither. Results: Two hundred ninety-nine respondents completed the survey. No outcome measure met the criteria for routine practice. Eight of 17 multidimensional PROMs, and six of eight clinician-reported OMs met the criteria for not-routine practice. All unidimensional PROMs and performance-based OMs, and a select number of multidimensional PROMs and clinician-reported OMs did not meet the threshold for routine or not-routine practice. Conclusions: Our results suggest no single outcome measure is routinely used by physiotherapists assessing a suspected case of LET. It is plausible that physiotherapists select OMs based on patient presentation, rather than the clinical diagnosis, or that outcome measures are perhaps seen more as a research tool than common place in clinical practice.
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.