ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Literature Review of Lateral Epicondylitis: Diagnosis, Risk Factors, Management and Treatment.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lateral epicondylitis (LE), commonly referred to as tennis elbow, remains a frequent cause of lateral elbow pain, yet its optimal management and risk profile are still debated. Therefore, this review aimed to summarize current evidence on its definition, diagnosis, and treatment while addressing common misconceptions. A non-systematic review of major medical databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, was conducted using predefined inclusion criteria to identify relevant review articles. The analyzed literature highlights that LE is primarily diagnosed clinically and managed through a spectrum of conservative and interventional approaches. Evidence suggests that structured physiotherapy and load modification remain the cornerstones of treatment, while modalities such as platelet-rich plasma and autologous blood injections may offer longer-term benefits compared with corticosteroids, which are effective mainly for short-term symptom relief. In contrast, interventions such as acupuncture and shock wave therapy show limited or inconsistent efficacy. Identified risk factors include female sex, smoking history, repetitive or forceful manual work, and higher cardiovascular risk burden. Overall, conservative management should be the first-line approach, with biologic therapies considered in refractory cases and surgery reserved as a last option; however, further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to establish optimal treatment algorithms and clarify long-term outcomes.
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.