ArticleACR open rheumatology2026
How Do Open-Ended Interview and Closed-Ended Questionnaire Responses Compare? A Matched Mixed-Methods Study Examining Treatment Attitudes of Patients With Meniscal Tear and Persistent Pain.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDespite receiving physical therapy (PT), some patients with meniscal tear still experience persistent knee pain. Understanding their treatment preferences is essential for clinicians to engage in shared decision-making. Self-reported questionnaires are often used to gauge patients' experiences and preferences, but questionnaires may not fully capture their attitudes. We conducted a mixed-methods study to compare patients' treatment preferences collected from closed-ended questionnaires and open-ended interviews.
methodsParticipants included 20 patients with physician-suspected meniscal tear and persistent knee pain following a course of PT. Participants participated in interviews and completed questionnaires that assessed their preferences for five treatment modalities such as PT, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), injections, medications, and educational support. Subsequently, we scored the qualitative data from interviews and compared the qualitative and questionnaire responses.
resultsAlthough most participants indicated a preference to avoid APM in the questionnaires, many expressed a conditional willingness to receive APM in the interviews, particularly if their physician recommended it. Many participants endorsed a preference to receive injections, medications, and additional PT in written questionnaires, but several expressed a conditional willingness to receive these modalities in interviews. For example, some participants described cost and location as important factors to consider before agreeing to additional PT, whereas others voiced a preference to avoid frequent medication use in the interviews.
conclusionOur results suggest that closed-ended questionnaires may not fully capture patient attitudes. Supplementation of questionnaires with qualitative interviews or open-ended questions may allow researchers and clinicians to fully understand the nuances of patient concerns and preferences.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.