Evidence Hub

Patient expectations assessed before randomisation and after the first treatment session, and their associations with pain outcome at 3 months in patients with tennis elbow: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled feasibility trial in Norwegian secondary care

Sveinall H, Røe C, Engebretsen KB, Skatteboe S, Pripp AH, Brox JI, Johnsen MB

BMJ open, 2026

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate patients' expectations of pain improvement before randomisation (T1) and after the first treatment (T2), and to examine how expectations at these two time points were associated with pain outcome measured at 3 months (T3).

Design: Exploratory secondary analyses of a three-arm, randomised controlled feasibility trial in patients with tennis elbow comparing heavy slow resistance training, shock wave therapy and advice (1:1:1).

Setting: Outpatient clinic at Oslo University Hospital.

Participants: Adults with lateral epicondylalgia, commonly known as tennis elbow.

Main outcome measures: Expected pain was rated on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0-10) at T1 and T2. Present pain (NRS, 0-10) was reported at 3 months (T3). Changes in expectations from T1 to T2 were summarised descriptively. Univariable linear regressions assessed associations between T3 pain and expectations at T1 and T2, treatment group and baseline factors. Explained variance was quantified by R2. Multivariable models including demographics and baseline pain were evaluated via adjusted R2.

Results: Fifty-four participants were included. In the shock wave group, nine (47%) came to expect greater improvement from T1 to T2; by contrast, in the advice group, seven (41%) expected less improvement. Expectations at T1 were not associated with T3 pain, whereas expectations at T2 were positively associated with T3 pain (b=0.61, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89, p2=0.27), suggesting that higher expected pain at T2…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free