↓ Skip to main content

A Randomized Trial Among Compression Plus Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs, Aspiration, and Aspiration With Steroid Injection for Nonseptic Olecranon Bursitis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
A Randomized Trial Among Compression Plus Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs, Aspiration, and Aspiration With Steroid Injection for Nonseptic Olecranon Bursitis
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11999-015-4579-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joon Yub Kim, Seok Won Chung, Joo Hak Kim, Jae Hong Jung, Gwang Young Sung, Kyung-Soo Oh, Jong Soo Lee

Abstract

Olecranon bursitis might be a minor problem in the outpatient clinic but relatively be common to occur. However, there are few well-designed studies comparing approaches to treatment. (1) Which treatment (compression bandaging with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], aspiration, or aspiration with steroid injections) is associated with the highest likelihood of resolution of nonseptic olecranon bursitis? (2) Which treatment is associated with earliest resolution of symptoms? (3) What factors are associated with treatment failure by 4 weeks? We enrolled 133 patients from two centers; after applying prespecified exclusions (septic bursitis or concomitant inflammatory arthritis, intraarticular elbow pathology, recent aspiration or steroid injection done elsewhere, and refusal to participate), 90 patients were randomly allocated to receive compression bandaging with NSAIDs (C), aspiration (A), or aspiration with steroid injection (AS) groups (30 patients in each). The groups were similar at baseline in terms of age and gender. Seven patients (four from Group A and three from Group AS) were lost to followup. All patients were followed up weekly for 4 weeks, and the same treatment procedure was repeated if the bursitis recurred with any substantial fluid collection. At 4 weeks, the state of resolution and pain visual analog scale (VAS) were evaluated. Failed resolution was defined as presence of persistent olecranon bursal fluid collection at Week 4 after the initiation of the treatment; on the contrary, if bursal fluid collection was clinically reduced or completely disappeared by the end of Week 4, the treatment was considered successful. We compared the proportion of resolution by Week 4 and the median times to resolution among the treatment groups. In addition, we evaluated whether the resolution affected pain VAS and what factors were associated with the resolution. There were no differences in the proportion of patients whose bursitis resolved by Week 4 among the three treatment groups (Group C: 25 of 30 [83%], relative risk of resolution failure: 0.68 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.27-1.72], p = 0.580; Group A: 17 of 26 [65%], relative risk of resolution failure: 2.19 [95% CI, 0.98-4.87], p = 0.083; Group AS: 23 of 27 [85%], relative risk of resolution failure: 0.59 [95% CI, 0.22-1.63], p = 0.398) (p = 0.073). Steroid injection after aspiration (Group AS) was associated with the earliest resolution (2.3 weeks [range, 1-4 weeks]) when compared with aspiration alone (Group A; 3.1 weeks [range, 2-4 weeks]) and compression bandaging with NSAIDs (Group C; 3.2 weeks [range, 2-4 weeks]), p = 0.015). Longer duration of symptoms before treatment was the only factor associated with treatment failure by 4 weeks (failed resolution: 6 weeks [range, 2-9 weeks]; successful resolution: 4 weeks [range, 0.4-6 weeks]; p = 0.008). With the numbers available, there were no differences in efficacy when compression bandaging with NSAIDs, aspiration, and aspiration with steroid injection were compared. However, we were powered only to detect a 30% difference, meaning that if there were a smaller difference in efficacy among the groups, we might not have detected it in a study of this size. Our data can be used as pilot data to power future prospective (and likely multicenter) trials. Because olecranon bursitis can recur, and because treatments like aspiration and aspiration with steroid injection can cause complications, unless future trials demonstrate clear efficacy advantages of aspiration and/or injection both at short and longer terms, we suggest that compression bandaging and a short course of NSAIDs may offer the most appropriate balance of safety and efficacy. Level II, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Other 9 11%
Student > Master 6 7%
Researcher 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 28 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Psychology 3 4%
Engineering 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 32 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2023.
All research outputs
#5,300,532
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,351
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,268
of 291,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#22
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 291,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.