
pmid: 11406011
pmc: PMC8407516
Lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) is a frequently reported condition. A wide variety of treatment strategies has been described. As of yet, no optimal strategy has been identified.The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of orthotic devices for treatment of tennis elbow.An electronic database search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, Current Contents and reference lists from all retrieved articles. Experts on the subjects were approached for additional trials.All randomised clinical trials (RCT) describing individuals with diagnosed lateral epicondylitis and comparing the use of an orthotic device as a treatment strategy were evaluated for inclusion.Two reviewers independently assessed the validity of the included trials and extracted data on relevant outcome measures. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as Relative Risks (RRs) and continuous outcomes as Standardised Mean Differences (SMD), both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Statistical pooling and subgroup analyses were intendedFive small-size RCTs (N per group 7-49) were included. Validity score ranged from 3-9 positive items out of 11. Subgroup analyses were not performed due to the small number of trials. The limited number of included trials present few outcome measures and limited long-term results. Pooling was not possible due to large heterogeneity amongst trials.No definitive conclusions can be drawn concerning effectiveness of orthotic devices for lateral epicondylitis. More well-designed and well-conducted RCTs of sufficient power are warranted.
Orthotic Devices, Humans, Tennis Elbow, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Orthotic Devices, Humans, Tennis Elbow, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 96 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
