↓ Skip to main content

A randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injections: the hip injection trial (HIT) protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2018
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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injections: the hip injection trial (HIT) protocol
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoe Paskins, Gemma Hughes, Helen Myers, Emily Hughes, Susie Hennings, Andrea Cherrington, Amy Evans, Melanie Holden, Kay Stevenson, Ajit Menon, Kieran Bromley, Philip Roberts, Alison Hall, George Peat, Clare Jinks, Raymond Oppong, Martyn Lewis, Nadine E. Foster, Christian Mallen, Edward Roddy

Abstract

Evidence on the effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection for hip osteoarthritis is limited and conflicting. The primary objective of the Hip Injection Trial (HIT) is to compare pain intensity over 6 months, in people with hip OA between those receiving an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid with 1% lidocaine hydrochloride plus best current treatment with those receiving best current treatment alone. Secondary objectives are to determine specified comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes, and to explore, in a linked qualitative study, the lived experiences of patients with hip OA and experiences and impact of, ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection. The HIT trial is a pragmatic, three-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial in patients with painful hip OA with a linked qualitative study. The current protocol is described, in addition to details and rationale for amendments since trial registration. 204 patients with moderate-to-severe hip OA will be recruited. Participants are randomised on an equal basis (1:1:1 ratio) to one of three interventions: (1) best current treatment, (2) best current treatment plus ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid (triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg) with 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, or (3) best current treatment plus an ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride alone. The primary endpoint is patient-reported hip pain intensity across 2 weeks, 2 months, 4 months and 6 months post-randomisation. Recruitment is over 29 months with a 6-month follow-up period. To address the primary objective, the analysis will compare participants' 'average' follow-up pain NRS scores, based on a random effects linear repeated-measures model. Data on adverse events are collected and reported in accordance with national guidance and reviewed by external monitoring committees. Individual semi-structured interviews are being conducted with up to 30 trial participants across all three arms of the trial. To ensure healthcare services improve outcomes for patients, we need to ensure there is a robust and appropriate evidence-base to support clinical decision making. The HIT trial will answer important questions regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injections. ISRCTN: 50550256 , 28th July 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 17%
Other 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 34 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 June 2020.
All research outputs
#4,193,913
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#820
of 4,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,573
of 329,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#21
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 329,171 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.