Table 1

Self-perceived recovery, pain intensity, pain-free grip strength and elbow disability (PRTEE, PFFQ and modified PFFQ) for exercise with or without physiotherapy or HEP compared with corticosteroid injection(s)

OutcomesNo of studiesComparisonsEffects estimate
(95% CI)
P value
Certainty (GRADE)
Heterogeneity
Average estimate/assumed risk in Exercise (PT±HEP) groupAverage estimate/assumed risk in cortisone injection group
GROC
Short-term follow-up
288 of 122 (72.0%) participants reported satisfactory recovery63 of 127 (49.6%) participants reported satisfactory recovery RR 1.45*
(1.03 to 2.05) p=0.03

Very low†††‡‡
χ2=2.73, I2=63%, p=0.10
GROC
Mid-term follow-up
3142 of 164 (86.6%) participants reported satisfactory recovery84 of 169 (49.7%) participants reported satisfactory recovery RR 1.73*
(1.47 to 2.03) p<0.001
⊕⊕
Low††‡‡
χ2=0.86,
I2=0%, p=0.65
GROC
Long-term follow-up
3158 of 168 (94.0%) participants reported satisfactory recovery123 of 170 (72.3%) participants reported satisfactory recovery RR 1.27*
(1.16 to 1.40)p<0.001
⊕⊕
Low††‡‡
χ2=1.79,
I2=0%, p=0.41
Mean change in pain rating
Short-term follow-up
3Mean pain score was 18.9 (range 16.7 to 20.8) in 163 participantsMean pain score was 26.3 (range 25.3 to 30.6) in 166 participants SMD −0.27‡
(−0.59 to 0.05) p=0.09

Very low†††‡‡
χ2=4.15, I2=52%, p=0.13
Mean change in pain rating
Mid-term follow-up
3Mean pain score was 12.5 (range 9.0 to 14.0) in 164 participantsMean pain score was 29.7 (range 29.3 to 30.0) in 168 participants SMD −0.69*‡
(-0.91 to –0.47) p<0.001
⊕⊕
Low††‡‡
χ2=0.42,
I2=0%, p=0.81
Mean change in pain rating
Long-term follow-up
3Mean pain score was 6.5 (range 3.7 to 8.1) in 168 participantsMean pain score was 18.4 (range 9.8 to 21.6) in 169 participants SMD −0.56*‡
(-0.78 to –0.34) p<0.001
⊕⊕
Low††‡‡
χ2=0.94,
I2=0%, p=0.62
PFGS ratio
Short-term follow-up
2Mean ratio was 73.2 (range 66.3 to 80.8) in 122 participantsMean ratio was 61.9 (range 59.9 to 63.7) in 122 participants MD 12.15*§¶
(1.69 to 22.60) p=0.02

Very low††‡‡†
χ2=2.27, I2=56%, p=0.13
PFGS ratio
Mid-term follow-up
2Mean ratio was 87.6 (range 79.5 to 96.3) in 122 participantsMean ratio was 65.2 (range 64.1 to 66.5) in 121 participants MD 22.45*§ ¶
(3.63 to 41.30) p=0.02
⊕⊕
Low†††
χ2=6.92, I2=85%, p=0.009
PFGS ratio
Long-term follow-up
2Mean ratio was 96.7 (range 92.6 to 100.9) in 126 participantsMean ratio was 78.8 (range 72.6 to 84.6) in 125 participants MD 18.00*§ ¶(11.17 to 24.84) p<0.001 ⊕⊕
Low†††
χ2=0.28,
I2=0%, p=0.60
Elbow disability
Short-term follow-up
4Mean score was 24.1 (range 10.9 to 34.9) in 188 participantsMean score was 32.4 (range 12.5 to 52.7) in 190 participants SMD −0.28**
(−0.50 to –0.06)p=0.01

Very low††‡‡§§
χ2=3.42, I2=12%, p=0.33
Elbow disability
Mid-term follow-up
3Mean score was 16.1 (range 6.2 to 26.5) in 164 participantsMean score was 35.0 (range 18.6 to 53.3) in 167 participants SMD −0.80**
(−1.03 to –0.58) p<0.001

Very low††‡‡§§
χ2=0.99,
I2=0%, p=0.61
Elbow disability
Long-term follow-up
3Mean score was 9.0 (range 3.1 to 12.9) in 168 participantsMean score was 24.3 (range 7.5 to 37.1) in 168 participants SMD −0.64**
(−0.86 to –0.42) p<0.001

Very low††‡‡§§
χ2=1.84,
I2=0%, p=0.40
  • Data for two studies (48, 61) were requested and provided from authors as means and SDs.

  • *In favour of exercise (PT±HEP) compared with CI(s).

  • †Inconsistent results between included studies.

  • ‡Pooled weighted baseline pain 57.2—clinically significant difference 17.2 points change on pain scale (0–100); pooled weighted SDs at short-term, mid-term and long-term follow-up were 23.8, 24.6 and 20.1 points, respectively.

  • §Clinically significant differences.

  • ¶Pooled weighted baseline PFGS ratio 37.0—clinically significant difference 7.4 points change.

  • **Pooled weighted disability score at baseline was 57.7—clinically significant difference 37% or 21.3 points change; pooled weighted SDs at short-term, mid-term and long-term follow-up were 20.6, 22.1 and 21.6 points, respectively.

  • ††High risk of bias.

  • ‡‡Indirect comparison in one or more included studies.

  • §§Substantial differences at baseline disability scores among included studies.

  • GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; GROC, Global Rating of Change Scale; HEP, home exercise programme; IV, inverse variance; MD, mean difference; PFGS, Pain Free Grip Strength; PRFQ, Pain Free Function Questionnaire; PRTEE, Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation; PT, physiotherapy; RR, risk ratio; SMD, standardised mean difference.