Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBisset, Leanneen_US
dc.contributor.authorSmidt, N.en_US
dc.contributor.authorvan der Windt, D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBouter, L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorJull, G.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBrooks, P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorVicenzino, B.en_US
dc.contributor.editorR A Wattsen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:10:04Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:10:04Z
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.date.modified2009-05-27T08:41:51Z
dc.identifier.issn14620324en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/rheumatology/kem192en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/17779
dc.description.abstractObjective: To determine if subgroups of patients with tennis elbow respond differently to treatment. Methods: This study used individual patient data (N=383) from two randomised controlled trials that investigated a wait and see policy, corticosteroid injections and physiotherapy. Common outcome measures were: pain severity, global improvement, severity assessed by a blinded assessor, elbow disability, and pain free grip strength. Subgroup analyses for previous history of elbow pain, baseline pain severity, duration of the current episode and employment status were performed at six and 52 weeks. Results: Patients' age, previous elbow symptoms and baseline pain severity were similar between trials, but other characteristics differed between trial populations. Based on individual patient data from both trials, we found that corticosteroid injections were statistically and clinically superior at six weeks, but significantly worse at 52 weeks compared to both wait and see and physiotherapy. Subgroup effects were scarce and small. Patients with higher baseline pain score showed less benefit on pain outcomes between physiotherapy and a wait and see policy at six weeks. It also appeared that non-manual workers who had an injection were the only work subgroup to demonstrate similar differential effects between injections and a wait and see policy on global improvement at 52 weeks. Conclusions: The treatment outcomes were largely similar between trials and not different between most subgroups studied. In tennis elbow, it would appear that patient characteristics play only a small role in predicting treatment outcomes, which supports the generalisability of individual trial results.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.format.extent145188 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/en_AU
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom1601en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto1605en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue10en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalRheumatologyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume46en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode329903en_US
dc.titleConservative treatments for tennis elbow: do subgroups of patients respond differently?en_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
dcterms.licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/en_US
gro.facultyGriffith Health, School of Rehabilitation Sciencesen_US
gro.rights.copyrightCopyright 2007 authors. This is an open access paper. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ license that permits unrestricted use, provided that the paper is properly attributed.en_AU
gro.date.issued2007
gro.hasfulltextFull Text


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record