ArticleJSES international2026
Workplace use and outcomes of the dynamic orthosis for lateral epicondylitis: a comparative cohort study.
Article in JSES international, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Orthotic management of lateral epicondylitis remains suboptimal in working patients. Limited symptom relief and poor adherence to brace use during work are the key practical limitations. Therefore, the Dynamic Orthosis for Lateral Epicondylitis (DOLE) was developed for practical use at work. This study aimed to evaluate the work-related effectiveness of DOLE. We compared DOLE with conventional bracing (cock-up wrist splint and counterforce brace) in improving work-related function and pain. Methods: This retrospective cohort comparison treatment study enrolled employed patients with lateral epicondylitis at a single center. Patients received either conventional bracing (a cock-up wrist splint worn together with a counterforce brace; C group) or DOLE (D group) after its introduction. The primary outcomes were work-related function (Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [QuickDASH] work module) and pain during work (visual analog scale) at 3 and 6 months. Outcomes were compared between groups using analysis of covariance with adjustment for the corresponding baseline value. In addition, at-work brace use was assessed using a questionnaire at 3 months. Results: Thirty-five patients were included in this study (C group, n = 18; D group, n = 17). At 3 months, at-work use was rare for the cock-up splint (1/18) but common for the counterforce brace (18/18) in the C group. Conversely, 15 of 17 patients in the D group reported wearing DOLE during work. Baseline-adjusted analyses showed significantly better primary outcomes in the D group than in the C group at both 3 and 6 months. At 6 months, the baseline-adjusted between-group differences (D - C) were -23.6 (95% confidence interval, -40.0 to -7.2) for the QuickDASH work module and -23.0 mm (95% confidence interval, -35.0 to -10.9) for work pain on the visual analog scale. Conclusion: In working patients with lateral epicondylitis, DOLE use was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in the QuickDASH work module and work-related pain compared with conventional bracing. These findings suggest that DOLE may be a feasible work-compatible orthotic option and provide a rationale for larger prospective randomized studies.
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.