Ann Rheum Dis

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
[Advanced]

The most recent version of this article was published on 1 October 2005

Ann Rheum Dis. Published Online First: 30 March 2005. doi:10.1136/ard.2004.029363
Copyright © 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & European League Against Rheumatism

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
ard.2004.029363v1
64/10/1406    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Nynke Smidt
Daniëlle AWM van der Windt
Lex M Bouter
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smidt, N.
Right arrow Articles by Croft, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smidt, N.
Right arrow Articles by Croft, P.

Extended Report

A comparison of two primary care trials on tennis elbow: issues of external validity

Nynke Smidt 1*, Martyn A Lewis 2, Elaine M Hay 2, Daniëlle AWM van der Windt 1, Lex M Bouter 1 and Peter Croft 2

1 Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Netherlands
2 Keele University, United Kingdom

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: n.smidt{at}vumc.nl.

Accepted 21 March 2005


*  Abstract

Objective: To assess the clinical heterogeneity across two studies with respect to study population, interventions and outcome measures, and to evaluate the influence of these sources of heterogeneity on the results of the studies.

Methods: The individual patient data of two randomised controlled trials was used, both investigating the effectiveness of conservative treatments in 164 and 185 patients with a tennis elbow in primary care, respectively. Patients were allocated at random to a treatment with steroid injection, wait-and-see policy, NSAIDs, placebo tablets, or physiotherapy. Outcome measures included severity of the main complaint, inconvenience of the elbow complaints, pain during the day, elbow disability, pain-free grip strength and global improvement. All outcomes were assessed at one, six and twelve months after randomisation.

Results: The two study populations were similar with respect to age, gender, co-morbid neck/shoulder complaints, and baseline scores for the severity of pain. However, significant differences were observed for employment status, duration of elbow complaints, dominant side affected, previous history of elbow complaints, and use of painkillers. Local injections differed between the two studies with respect to volume, number and steroid preparation. However, after 1, 6 and 12 months, the treatment effects of steroid injections were very similar between the study populations.

Conclusion: Despite large differences in study population at baseline, the responses to steroid injections were remarkably similar. Also the responses to other conservative interventions and the placebo treatment were very consistent, suggesting a uniform course of a tennis elbow and a lack of influence of clinical heterogeneity.


Keywords: NSAIDs, physiotherapy, randomized controlled trial, steroid injections, tennis elbow







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & European League Against Rheumatism