Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse
Latest checks

Source study found

Story checked

Scientists Discover a Common Treatment for Chronic Tendon Pain May Not Actually Work (opens in a new tab)

scitechdaily.com · 2026-11-01

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

One claim goes further than the study. 2 other points were not covered by the paper.

  • 5 supported
  • 1 overstated
  • 2 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

One claim overstates the study. Five of eight check out. Two claims the study doesn't address.

  • 5 supported
  • 1 overstated
  • 2 not covered
Open claim evidence
3
Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

8 claims in this story

Showing all 8 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 8OverstatedA major clinical trial is challenging the effectiveness of commonly used injections for chronic Achilles tendon pain.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The paper profile supports the core point that a randomized trial found no clear 52-week clinical benefit of high-volume injections versus sham. However, the headline wording adds prominence-signaling descriptors—especially “major” and “commonly used”—that are not established in the abstract-level profile. The headline therefore slightly outruns the supplied evidence.

1

Study evidence

No clear difference in VISA-A at 12 months between sham and HVI with corticosteroid.-3.5 (98.33% CI -12.0 to 5.0)

“Single centred, participant and assessor masked, three arm randomised controlled trial (Inject trial).”
Claim 2 of 8Not coveredThe researchers conducted a randomized clinical trial involving 192 adults with midportion Achilles tendinopathy in Melbourne, Australia, between December 2019 and July 2022.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated192 adults

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile verifies the randomized trial design, the 192 adult participants, and midportion Achilles tendinopathy. It does not provide the Melbourne, Australia setting or the December 2019 to July 2022 recruitment dates, so the full claim cannot be verified at this evidence depth.

1

Study evidence

No clear difference in VISA-A at 12 months between sham and HVI with corticosteroid.-3.5 (98.33% CI -12.0 to 5.0)

“Single centred, participant and assessor masked, three arm randomised controlled trial (Inject trial).”
Claim 3 of 8Not coveredThe authors concluded that the evidence should prompt clinicians to reconsider the rationale for using these injections in people with Achilles tendinopathy, while a linked editorial said corticosteroids should not be presented as a cure and may be appropriate when immediate symptom relief is prioritized.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The underlying implication that the 52-week efficacy results call the rationale for these injections into question is consistent with the abstract-level findings. However, the exact quoted author conclusion and the linked editorial’s recommendations are not contained in the supplied paper profile, so this combined claim cannot be fully verified at abstract depth.

1

Study evidence

No clear difference in VISA-A at 12 months between sham and HVI with corticosteroid.-3.5 (98.33% CI -12.0 to 5.0)

“Single centred, participant and assessor masked, three arm randomised controlled trial (Inject trial).”
Claim 4 of 8SupportedA widely used injection treatment for chronic Achilles tendon pain may offer little lasting relief, according to a clinical trial published in The BMJ.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The hedged claim that the injection treatment may offer little lasting relief is supported by the trial’s 52-week results: neither high-volume injection with corticosteroid nor high-volume injection without corticosteroid showed a clear VISA-A improvement versus sham. The “widely used” framing is not directly verified in the abstract profile, but the central trial-result claim is supported.

1

Study evidence

No clear difference in VISA-A at 12 months between sham and HVI with corticosteroid.-3.5 (98.33% CI -12.0 to 5.0)

“Single centred, participant and assessor masked, three arm randomised controlled trial (Inject trial).”
Claim 5 of 8SupportedResearchers found that high-volume injections, including those containing corticosteroids, did not significantly improve pain or physical function compared with a sham procedure after one year.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedafter one year

Why this verdict

Supported. The profile reports that at 12 months/52 weeks there were no clear differences in VISA-A pain/disability scores between sham and either high-volume injection with corticosteroid or high-volume injection without corticosteroid.

1

Study evidence

No clear difference in VISA-A at 12 months between sham and HVI with corticosteroid.-3.5 (98.33% CI -12.0 to 5.0)

“Single centred, participant and assessor masked, three arm randomised controlled trial (Inject trial).”
Claim 6 of 8SupportedParticipants were assigned to a sham injection, a high-volume injection without corticosteroid, or a high-volume injection containing corticosteroid, and everyone also received the same exercise program, education, and activity-modification guidance.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated64 sham; 63 high-volume without corticosteroid; 65 with corticosteroid

Why this verdict

Supported. The profile reports random assignment to sham injection, high-volume injection without corticosteroid, and high-volume injection with corticosteroid, with arm sizes of 64, 63, and 65 respectively. It also states that all groups received the same exercise programme, education, and activity modification advice.

1

Study evidence

No clear difference in VISA-A at 12 months between sham and HVI with corticosteroid.-3.5 (98.33% CI -12.0 to 5.0)

“Single centred, participant and assessor masked, three arm randomised controlled trial (Inject trial).”
Claim 7 of 8SupportedAt the one-year follow-up, neither active injection approach showed a clear improvement in pain or disability compared with sham, and the two active injection approaches did not differ meaningfully overall.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated52 weeks

Why this verdict

Supported. At 52 weeks, the profile reports no clear VISA-A difference between sham and either active injection arm, and no clear difference between the two high-volume injection regimens overall.

1

Study evidence

No clear difference in VISA-A at 12 months between sham and HVI with corticosteroid.-3.5 (98.33% CI -12.0 to 5.0)

“Single centred, participant and assessor masked, three arm randomised controlled trial (Inject trial).”
Claim 8 of 8SupportedAdding corticosteroid produced small improvements after six weeks, but those benefits were short-lived and by 26 weeks the corticosteroid group had worse outcomes than the high-volume injection without the drug.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedsix weeks; 26 weeks

Why this verdict

Supported. The profile reports a 6-week benefit for high-volume injection with corticosteroid versus sham, but no lasting 52-week benefit, and it reports worse 26-week VISA-A outcomes for high-volume injection with corticosteroid compared with high-volume injection without corticosteroid.

1

Study evidence

No clear difference in VISA-A at 12 months between sham and HVI with corticosteroid.-3.5 (98.33% CI -12.0 to 5.0)

“Single centred, participant and assessor masked, three arm randomised controlled trial (Inject trial).”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • Economic evaluation: high-volume injection with corticosteroid was less costly than sham with similar QALYs and had greater than 0.90 probability of being cost-effective at AUD50,000 and AUD100,000 willingness-to-pay thresholds.

    The story focuses on clinical efficacy and safety but omits the paper’s secondary economic finding, which materially complicates a purely negative account of the corticosteroid-containing injection.

    From Within-trial cost-utility analysis

  • Paper-profile limitations: the trial was single-centre, and 12-month VISA-A follow-up was 181/192 participants, leaving some loss to follow-up.

    The story’s caveats mention social-media recruitment, clinician unmasking, and possible chance findings, but those caveats are not part of the supplied abstract-level profile. The profile’s explicit single-centre limitation and limited loss to follow-up are not clearly presented as caveats in the story.

    From Single-centre participant- and assessor-masked randomized controlled trial (three-arm, 1:1:1)

  • Safety-reporting limitations: the abstract gives only a single summary statement on serious trial-related adverse events and does not provide non-serious event counts, arm-specific safety data, definitions, or ascertainment methods.

    Although the story reports the absence of serious treatment-related adverse events, it does not convey the abstract-level limitation that safety reporting is minimal and does not support strong conclusions about non-serious, rare, or delayed harms.

    From Single-centre, participant- and assessor-masked randomized controlled trial (safety reporting as part of trial conduct)

5 things the story did carry across
  • Primary clinical trial design and population: single-centre, participant- and assessor-masked, three-arm randomized controlled trial in 192 adults with midportion Achilles tendinopathy.
  • Interventions: sham injection versus high-volume injection without corticosteroid versus high-volume injection with corticosteroid, with the same exercise, education, and activity-modification co-interventions for all groups.
  • Primary 52-week clinical efficacy result: neither high-volume injection with corticosteroid nor high-volume injection without corticosteroid clearly improved VISA-A pain/disability compared with sham.
  • Intermediate clinical findings: high-volume injection with corticosteroid showed a 6-week benefit versus sham, but at 26 weeks had worse VISA-A outcomes than high-volume injection without corticosteroid.
  • Safety finding: no serious trial-related adverse events were recorded.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

3

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

human in vivo

1Lead resulthuman in vivoAssess clinical efficacy of high-volume injection (with corticosteroid or without) versus sham injection for midportion Achilles tendinopathy over 52 weeks, primarily using VISA-A pain/disability.Single-centre participant- and assessor-masked randomized controlled trial (three-arm, 1:1:1)Expand

In plain English

Single-centre, participant- and assessor-masked three-arm randomized controlled trial (Inject trial) in 192 adults with midportion Achilles tendinopathy comparing sham injection, high-volume injection (HVI) without corticosteroid, and HVI with 25 mg hydrocortisone added to the first 10 mL. Primary clinical outcome was VISA-A (pain and disability) at 52 weeks. At 12 months (181/192, 94% follow-up) there were no clear differences in VISA-A between sham and HVI with corticosteroid or HVI without corticosteroid; some short-term differences favoured HVI with corticosteroid at 6 weeks but HVI with corticosteroid showed worse outcomes versus HVI without corticosteroid at 26 weeks. Economic analysis reported HVI with corticosteroid as less costly than sham with similar QALYs and >0.90 probability of being cost‑effective at AUD50,000–100,000 willingness-to-pay thresholds. No serious trial‑related adverse events were reported.

Key findings

  • No clear difference in VISA-A at 12 months between sham and HVI with corticosteroid.-3.5 (98.33% CI -12.0 to 5.0)
  • No clear difference in VISA-A at 12 months between sham and HVI without corticosteroid.4.0 (98.33% CI -4.2 to 12.3)
“Single centred, participant and assessor masked, three arm randomised controlled trial (Inject trial).”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Single-centre trial (as described in abstract).
  • Summary based on abstracted results; full text may contain additional methodological details.
  • Follow-up reported as 94% (181/192) at 12 months; loss to follow-up present but limited.
2secondary dataAssess cost effectiveness (societal perspective) of high-volume injection strategies versus sham using cost per QALY over 12 months.Within-trial cost-utility analysisExpand

In plain English

Within-trial cost-utility analysis conducted alongside the Inject randomized trial (52-week follow-up) estimating cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from a societal perspective. The abstract reports that high-volume injection with corticosteroid was less costly than sham and had similar QALYs, with a >0.90 probability of being cost-effective at AUD50,000 and AUD100,000 willingness-to-pay thresholds over the 12-month horizon. Detailed costing methods, resource categories, and full uncertainty reporting are not described in the abstract.

Key findings

  • The within-trial economic analysis found that high-volume injection with corticosteroid was less costly than sham and produced similar QALYs over 12 months; the probability of being cost-effective versus sham exceeded 0.90 at both AUD50,000 and AUD100,000 willingness-to-pay thresholds.>0.90 probability of cost-effectiveness at AUD50,000 and AUD100,000 per QALY
“The economic outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-years from a societal perspective.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Within-trial horizon limited to 12 months—abstract provides no information on potential longer-term economic consequences.
  • Abstract does not specify methods for QALY estimation (instrument used), valuation, or how missing data were handled for costs or QALYs.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

3human in vivoAssess safety/adverse events of high-volume injections (with/without corticosteroid) compared with sham.Single-centre, participant- and assessor-masked randomized controlled trial (safety reporting as part of trial conduct)Expand

In plain English

The Inject randomized controlled trial (n=192) reported safety outcomes succinctly in the abstract: no serious trial-related adverse events were recorded across the three randomized arms (sham, high volume injection with corticosteroid, high volume injection without corticosteroid) over the 12-month follow-up.

Key findings

  • No serious trial related adverse events were recorded.
“No serious trial related adverse events were recorded.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • The abstract does not describe adverse event ascertainment methods, definitions of seriousness, attribution processes, timing, or severity grading.

3 further details could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Open the paper in Tessa

Efficacy and cost effectiveness of high volume injections with and without corticosteroid compared with sham for midportion Achilles tendinopathy (Inject trial): randomised controlled trial

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026

Deep dive in Tessa (opens in a new tab)Source record (opens in a new tab)

Why this one

Near certain

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa is where you inspect it deeply.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref · 37 candidate papers

Selected

Efficacy and cost effectiveness of high volume injections with and without corticosteroid compared with sham for midportion Achilles tendinopathy (Inject trial): randomised controlled trial

BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) · 2026 · PubMed, Europe PMC, Crossref

Tessa (opens in a new tab)Source (opens in a new tab)

And 31 more candidates considered.