CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 197Tendon Structure and TreatmentOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment

Chronic Lateral Epicondylitis: Comparative Effectiveness of a Home Exercise Program Including Stretching Alone versus Stretching Supplemented with Eccentric or Concentric Strengthening

Martinez-Silvestrini, Julio A., Newcomer, Karen L., Gay, Ralph E., Schaefer, Michael P., Kortebein, Patrick, Arendt, Katherine W.·2005·Journal of Hand Therapy
DOI 10.1197/j.jht.2005.07.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of eccentric strengthening. Ninety-four subjects (50 men) with chronic lateral epicondylitis were allocated randomly into three groups: stretching, concentric strengthening with stretching, and eccentric strengthening with stretching. Subjects performed an exercise program for six weeks. All three groups received instruction on icing, stretching, and avoidance of aggravating activities. The strengthening groups received instruction on isolated concentric and eccentric wrist extensor strengthening, respectively. At six weeks, significant gains were made in all three groups as assessed with pain-free grip strength, Patient-rated Forearm Evaluation Questionnaire, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, Short Form 36, and visual analog pain scale. No significant differences in outcome measures were noted among the three groups. Although there were no significant differences in outcome among the groups, eccentric strengthening did not cause subjects to worsen. Further studies are needed to assess the unique effects of a more intense or longer eccentric strengthening program for patients with lateral epicondylitis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1197/j.jht.2005.07.007

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Disability levels at the end of the program (12.56, 95% CI 10.25; 14.87) were within the ranges reported in previous studies (9-23 points).

    “Disability levels at the end of this program (12.56, 95% CI 10.25; 14.87) were within the ranges reported in previous studies (9–23 points), using either QuickDASH, DASH or the Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation questionnaire (PRTEE) [74,75,78,79].”

    From Digital Rehabilitation for Elbow Pain Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study (2022) · cites this paper as [74]

  • The observed high compliance and high completion rate strongly support an asynchronous digital care model, with results similar to those previously reported in RCTs evaluating conventional therapies for EP.

    “The observed high compliance and high completion rate strongly support an asynchronous digital care model, with results similar to those previously reported in RCTs evaluating conventional therapies for EP [74,76,77].”

    From Digital Rehabilitation for Elbow Pain Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study (2022) · cites this paper as [74]

  • Disability improvement was correlated with pain reduction (53.1%), which is in line with that reported in previous clinical trials (29-56.6%).

    “In the present study, disability improvement was correlated with pain reduction (53.1%), which is in line with that reported in previous clinical trials (29–56.6%) [73,74].”

    From Digital Rehabilitation for Elbow Pain Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study (2022) · cites this paper as [74]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Martinez-Silvestrini, J. A., Newcomer, K. L., Gay, R. E., Schaefer, M. P., Kortebein, P., & Arendt, K. W.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Newcomer, Karen L.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Hand Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-10
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
411-420
ISSN
0894-1130 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1197/j.jht.2005.07.007
OpenAlex
W2053641010
Cited by
197
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Hand Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Tendon Structure and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Elbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Keywords
chronic lateral epicondylitis, home exercise program, stretching, eccentric training, wrist extensors, grip strength, pain, functional disability, exercise safety
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Exercise Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Home Nursing, Humans, Isometric Contraction, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Patient Compliance, Probability, Severity of Illness Index, Tennis Elbow, Time Factors, Cohort Studies, Range of Motion, Articular, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Muscle, Skeletal, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review