RightRep EN · PT Open the app
BLOG

Can You Train With Hip Bursitis? The Lateral-Hip Audit: Where Segal's Census of 3,026 Adults Put Greater Trochanteric Pain in 15.0% Unilateral Plus 8.5% Bilateral of Women Aged 50–79 Against 6.6% Plus 1.9% of Men (OR 3.37) While Acquitting BMI Entirely (OR 1.10) — the Bursa Is Not the Story — Where Bird's Prospective MRI Found the Trochanteric Bursa Distended in Only 2 of 24 Women and Never Once Without Gluteus Medius Pathology, Where Fearon Read the Tissue Itself and Put Ultrasound's Predictive Value for Tendon Tears at 1.0, Where Grimaldi Re-Filed the Whole Entity From 'Trochanteric Bursitis' to Gluteal Tendinopathy Under Iliotibial-Band Compression, Where Mellor's 204-Person Brisbane Randomized Trial Watched Fourteen Sessions of Load-Management Education Plus Exercise Beat Wait-and-See at NNT 2.0 and the Cortisone Injection at NNT 5.0 With the Global-Improvement Win Still Standing at Fifty-Two Weeks While the Economics Companion Called It Cost-Effective Against Both, Where Brinks' Primary-Care Trial Watched the Injection's 55%-Versus-34% Lead Evaporate Into 61% Versus 60% by Twelve Months, Where Ramon's 103-Patient Multicenter Shockwave RCT Took Pain From 6.3 to 2.0 Against 4.7 Over Sham, Where the Thirteen-Trial Network Meta-Analysis Ruled Nothing Beats Control on Pain Past Six Months While Structured Exercise Is the Only Function Door, Where Schenk's Seventy-One-Month Natural History Left 90% of Partial Tears Stable — and Where UNICAMP's Randomized Trial Improved Everybody With Resistance Exercise While the Brain-Stimulation Gadget Added Exactly Nothing: the Lateral Wall Wants Compression Managed and Strength Built, Not a Needle in a Pouch That Is Rarely Even Sick

By RightRep AI Assistant · · 23 min read

There is a fence at the top of this post and it outranks everything below it: pain that lives in the groin or deep in the buttock, arrives with a restricted, stiff hip and morning stiffness that takes its time — that is the hip-arthritis or labral door, not the lateral wall this file audits; the lateral wall's signature is point tenderness right over the knob of bone at the side of your hip, loaded by stairs, single-leg stance and lying on that side. The second fence: lateral hip pain traveling with a back that also hurts, or with tingling running down the leg in a sciatica pattern, is the spine wearing a hip costume — Segal's own census tied greater trochanteric pain to low back pain at OR 2.79 [1], and the referred-pain file belongs to a clinician, not a training plan. The third fence: night pain that does not care about position, pain unrelated to loading, fever or unexplained weight loss is the rare-file door — clinician now, not after the next block; and a fall with inability to bear weight is the fracture door, imaging today. The fourth fence: a Trendelenburg limp that will not resolve, or weakness that progresses week over week, is the neurologist's door. And one honesty clause before anything else: this condition's own network referee — thirteen randomized trials, 1,034 patients — found that no therapy significantly outperformed no treatment on pain at six-to-twelve months, and that structured exercise was the only treatment that improved function at all [11] — so the numbers below are the best file that exists, quoted with its limits attached. With the fences respected, the question underneath is the midlife lifter's oldest lateral-hip dilemma: the resting script ("it's an inflamed bursa — stop training, get the shot, wait") versus the shopping script ("the foam roller, the massage gun, the strap, the creams"). The first script confuses the tendon with the pouch; the second rolls a structure that is already being compressed. The evidence manages the compression, loads the tendon gradually, and files the receipts.

The short answer: train — manage compression first, build the lateral wall second, keep everything else training

Strip the file to its spine. This is the midlife woman's injury above all: Segal's population census of 3,026 community adults aged 50–79 found greater trochanteric pain syndrome in 15.0% unilateral plus 8.5% bilateral of the women, against 6.6% plus 1.9% of the men (women OR 3.37, 95% CI 2.67–4.25) [1] — and Grimaldi's review adds the demographic spine: it strikes in mid-life, in athletes and in people who never exercise alike, and it interferes with side-lying sleep and ordinary weight-bearing tasks enough to be genuinely debilitating [5]. The name is telling you the diagnosis is mislabeled: what the internet calls hip bursitis was re-filed a decade ago — gluteal tendinopathy of the gluteus medius and minimus is the primary local source of lateral hip pain, "previously referred to as trochanteric bursitis" [4]; Bird's prospective MRI series of 24 women with the condition found the trochanteric bursa distended in only 2 of 24 — and never once without gluteus medius pathology sitting underneath it (tears in 45.8%, tendinitis in 62.5%) [2]; and when Fearon's team took the tissue itself to the operating room, ultrasound's positive predictive value for the tendon tears was 1.0 [3]. The treatment file's cleanest sentence is also its most useful: Mellor's 204-person randomized trial gave one arm fourteen sessions of load-management education plus exercise over eight weeks, one arm a single corticosteroid injection, one arm wait-and-see — and global-improvement success at eight weeks ran 51 of 66 against 38 of 65 against 20 of 68, education-plus-exercise beating wait-and-see at NNT 2.0 and the injection at NNT 5.0 [6], with the win over the injection still standing on global improvement at fifty-two weeks (NNT 4.9) [6] and the health-economics companion judging the programme cost-effective against both [7]. The injection door is real but it is a short-term loan: Brinks' primary-care trial watched 55% versus 34% recovered at three months collapse into 61% versus 60% by twelve [8]. The one passive adjunct with a proper randomized file is shockwave — Ramon's 103-patient multicenter RCT took pain from 6.3 to 2.0 against 4.7 over sham at two months [9], and Carlisi's fifty-patient trial held the pain edge to six months without buying function [10] — a clinician's key, not a training plan's. The verdict writes itself: don't rest the lateral wall into weakness and don't roll a compressed tendon harder — manage the compression positions, load the gluteal tendon progressively, and keep the rest of the body training exactly as it was [4][5][6].

Who is asking: the census file

The census is population-scale and it is unusually blunt about who owns this file. Segal's team examined 3,026 community-dwelling adults aged 50 to 79 — not a clinic queue, a population — and found greater trochanteric pain in 15.0% of women unilaterally and 8.5% bilaterally, against 6.6% and 1.9% in men; the female odds ratio 3.37 (2.67–4.25), with age and race carrying no association at all [1]. More than a third of the affected women — 8.5 of the 23.5% — carry it on both sides, and those with GTPS performed measurably slower on functional testing [1]. Grimaldi's mechanisms review frames the demography: onset in mid-life, female predominance, in the athletic and the sedentary alike, with side-lying sleep and single-leg weight-bearing the daily tasks it breaks [5] — which is precisely the intersection this library lives at: the 40-to-60 lifter whose training already asks for single-leg stance, hip hingeing and glute work, and whose nights ask for a side to sleep on. The company it keeps is the quiet finding: in Segal's fully adjusted model, the things that traveled with greater trochanteric pain were ipsilateral knee osteoarthritis (OR 3.47), low back pain (OR 2.79), contralateral knee OA (OR 1.74) and iliotibial-band tenderness (OR 1.72) [1] — the knee below, the back above, and the ITB pressing across the wall itself. Two of the internet's favorite explanations failed the model completely, and one of them is the framing of this entire post: BMI was not associated with GTPS (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.80–1.52, comparing obese against normal) [1]. The file is not a weight problem wearing a hip label. It is a load-management problem wearing a bursa label.

What the name is telling you: the bursa-is-innocent file

The resting script is built on a folk model — "the bursa is a fluid pouch, the pouch is inflamed, rest it and drain it" — and the imaging demolished it a full decade before anyone rebranded the condition. Bird's prospective series put 24 women with clinical greater trochanteric pain into the MRI: gluteus medius tears in 45.8%, gluteus medius tendinitis in 62.5% — and trochanteric bursal distension in exactly 2 patients, never occurring in the absence of gluteus medius pathology [2]. The pouch, when it was distended at all, was riding on a sick tendon. Fearon's group then did the study the field had skipped: 24 recalcitrant cases taken to surgical reconstruction, with preoperative ultrasound read against what the surgeon found — the positive predictive value of ultrasound for gluteal tendon tears was 1.0, and the histopathology showed pathological change in the tendon tissue, with patients reporting real pain relief and functional recovery after the reconstruction [3]. The synthesis arrived with Grimaldi's re-file: gluteal tendinopathy is now believed to be the primary local source of lateral hip pain, the condition "previously referred to as trochanteric bursitis" — prevalent particularly among postmenopausal women, with a considerable influence on quality of life [4]. Read what that buys and kills at once: it buys the load interpretation (the tendon received more compression and tensile load than it could adapt to — a dose problem, the same story as the Achilles and patellar tendons this library has already audited, with the same non-inflammatory biology), and it kills both the rest-as-cure script and the injection-as-answer script (a needle in a pouch that Bird found distended in under one in ten cases is treating the passenger, not the driver [2][8]).

The mechanism: compression, not inflammation

The mechanical story is what makes this file's practical advice different from every other tendinopathy in the library, and it comes from Grimaldi's mechanisms review [5]. The gluteus medius and minimus tendons wrap to their insertion on the greater trochanter — the knob of bone you can feel at the side of your hip — and the iliotibial band passes over that same knob like a strap. Every time the hip moves into adduction — the thigh crossing the midline — the ITB compresses the gluteal tendon against the trochanter underneath it [5]. Mechanical loading drives the tendon's structural form and its biological processes [5], and this tendon's loading environment is dominated by that compression window. Now inventory the daily positions of the midlife body: crossing the legs while sitting; standing with the hip cocked to one side, hanging into adduction; lying on the opposite side with the top leg falling across the midline; and every single-leg stance moment — stairs, stepping, single-leg work in the gym [5]. The condition's signature isn't just pain on the trochanter; it is pain specifically in side-lying sleep and single-leg loading [5]. That is why the modern programme's first move is not a single exercise — it is load management education: stop crossing the legs, sleep with a pillow between the knees to keep the top hip out of adduction, stop standing with the hip hung to one side — and only then does progressive strength follow [6][15]. It is also why the foam-roller instinct backfires: you would be rolling a tendon that is already being compressed by the strap above it, in the exact position that compresses it.

The fence in practice: the five-minute exam that separates the files

Before any programming, the file needs its borders drawn — and the good news is that the diagnosis is clinical, with the exam's own numbers published. The address test: point tenderness directly over the greater trochanter — the knob of bone at the lateral hip — with pain on resisted abduction, is the clinical signature; Bird's series put Trendelenburg's sign as the best single physical predictor of an underlying tear, sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 76.9%, intraobserver kappa 0.676 [2]. The rotation test: groin pain, deep buttock pain, restriction and morning stiffness that takes more than half an hour to warm up routes to the arthritis and labral doors — different walls, different files. The spine test: lateral hip pain that arrives with back pain or sciatica-pattern tingling goes to the clinician for the spine workup — the census itself ties this pain to LBP at OR 2.79, and referred pain does not answer to hip programming [1]. The systems test: night pain unrelieved by position, pain unrelated to loading, fever or weight loss is the rare-file door — clinician now. The weakness test: a Trendelenburg limp that persists or a weakness that progresses week over week earns the neurologist, not a deload. And the honest seventh item: if three-plus months of honest programmed care has not moved the needle, the file earns clinician reassessment before it earns another cycle — the prognosis door below explains what is happening in that case [12].

The treatment spine: fourteen sessions that beat the needle and the wait

Every audit family has one result that anchors the post; this file's anchor is the Brisbane-Melbourne randomized trial, and it is the family's cleanest. Mellor's team took 204 people aged 35–70 (167 of them women, mean age 54.8) with MRI-confirmed gluteal tendinopathy and at least three months of lateral hip pain at 4/10 or worse, and randomized them three ways: a physiotherapy-led programme of fourteen sessions over eight weeks — load-management education plus progressive exercise; one corticosteroid injection; or wait-and-see [6]. At eight weeks, global-improvement success ran 51 of 66 on the programme, 38 of 65 on the injection, 20 of 68 on wait-and-see — education-plus-exercise over wait-and-see at a risk difference of 49.1% and NNT 2.0 (95% CI 1.6–2.9), the injection over wait-and-see at 29.2% and NNT 3.4, and the programme over the injection at 19.9% and NNT 5.0 [6]; pain in the past week averaged 1.5 against 2.7 against 3.8 [6]. At fifty-two weeks — with 92.6% of the trial still answering — the programme still beat the injection on global improvement (RD 20.4%, NNT 4.9) and beat wait-and-see (RD 26.8%, NNT 3.7), with pain at 2.1 against 2.3 against 3.2 and the programme-injection pain gap closed but the global verdict intact [6]. The economics companion then priced it: education plus exercise was cost-effective against the injection (AU$12,719 per QALY on the societal perspective, $5,592 health-system) and against wait-and-see ($29,258 / $3,444), buying quality-adjusted life years at defensible cost [7]. What the fourteen sessions actually contained is the transferable part: the load-management education first — the compression positions, the pillow between the knees, the single-leg dosing — and progressive strengthening second, with the international practice survey confirming that is exactly what physiotherapists who see this file actually deliver: all 361 respondents used education and exercise, strengthening and neuromuscular control targeting the gluteal muscles foremost [15].

The injection door: a real loan with a twelve-month balloon payment

The cortisone shot deserves its own honest paragraph because it is the single most common thing this file's readers have already tried. The primary-care randomized trial is Brinks': 120 patients across 81 Dutch family physicians, one local corticosteroid injection versus usual care — recovery at three months 55% versus 34% (adjusted OR 2.38, NNT 5), pain at rest 1.18 points better, pain with activity 1.30 better [8]. That is a real effect, and it matters for the acute window — the weeks when sleep is broken and stairs are the enemy. But the same trial's twelve-month follow-up reads: 61% versus 60% recovered (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.50–2.27) — the difference is gone, both groups converging on the same endpoint [8]. Set that against Mellor's fifty-two-week data, where the injection arm lost to the exercise programme on global improvement (NNT 4.9 against it) [6], and the synthesis writes itself: the injection is a short-term pain loan, reasonable for breaking the acute cycle, useless as the plan — and the practice survey's quiet warning that 40% of physiotherapists reported commonly recommending up to two-to-three injections per patient per year [15] is the field's own over-reliance showing. The programme is the asset; the needle is a bridge across the worst weeks, walked while the programme runs [6][8].

The shockwave door: the one passive adjunct with a randomized file

The passive shelf has exactly one product whose file shows daylight under randomization, and the keyholder matters. Ramon's multicenter randomized trial took 103 patients with chronic GTPS, put every one of them on the same specific exercise protocol, and added focused shockwave to half and sham to the other: pain fell from 6.3 at baseline to 2.0 in the treatment group against 4.7 in the sham group at two months (p<0.001), with every secondary outcome significantly better except lower-extremity function at one month, and no complications [9]. Carlisi's randomized trial of fifty patients — 86% women, mean age 61 — confirmed the shape against an active comparator (ultrasound therapy): pain 2.08 versus 3.36 at two months and 0.79 versus 2.03 at six months, function improving in both arms with no between-group difference [10]. Read the pattern honestly: shockwave buys pain relief, on top of exercise, for the chronic file — it does not buy function, and the network meta-analysis of the whole field still ruled that nothing beats no-treatment on pain past the six-month mark [11]. The practical translation is three-part: the shockwave door exists; its proper address is the chronic file that is already training and loading honestly; and its proper keyholder is the clinician whose protocol it supplements — the same relationship the shin-splints and recalcitrant-tendon files in this library carry [9][10][11].

The gadget shelf and the referee's map

The network meta-analysis is this file's honesty engine, and its verdict deserves the plain reading: across thirteen randomized trials and 1,034 patients, PRP and shockwave beat no-treatment on pain at one-to-three months — and no proposed therapy significantly outperformed the no-treatment control on pain at six-to-twelve months, while structured exercise was the only treatment that significantly improved function, carrying the highest probability of being the best functional treatment [11]. The Brazil file adds the freshest controlled entry in the entire condition: UNICAMP's randomized, double-blind trial put thirty GTPS patients on a resistance-exercise programme with real or sham transcranial direct-current stimulation added — both groups improved, and the between-group difference on the Brazilian-Portuguese VISA-G score was a nonsignificant effect size of −0.16 (95% CI −0.54 to 0.27, p=0.460) [13]. The exercise did the work; the brain-stimulation gadget added nothing measurable — the same verdict the gadget shelves of adjacent files keep receiving, and the reason money in this condition belongs in progressive overload, not hardware [13][11].

The prognosis door: what happens if you only wait

The untreated file's natural history finally has numbers, and they cut both ways. Schenk's team brought back 58 patients (64 hips, mean age 66) with degenerative hip-abductor lesions on MRI for a minimum 36-month re-examination — mean follow-up 71 months — and read the change: 34% of lesions had progressed overall, stepwise from bursitis to tendinopathy to partial tear to complete tear [12]. But the distribution is the story inside the story: 90% of partial tears remained stable or transformed into scar tissue, and the authors' conclusion was that nonoperative treatment is a valid long-term option for degenerative abductor lesions, especially partial tears [12]. Set against that, Grimaldi's review documents the condition's quality-of-life burden — the broken sleep, the abandoned stairs, the training quietly narrowed around a tender hip [5]. The synthesis: waiting does not usually end in rupture, but it does not end in resolution either — and the one intervention that beats waiting at eight weeks and fifty-two weeks, at NNT 2.0 and cost-effectiveness, is available on day one [6][7][12].

The risk file: what actually travels with this condition — and what the internet blames instead

The census is the risk file here, and its inversions are worth the ticket alone. In Segal's fully adjusted model, the traveling companions were ipsilateral knee OA (OR 3.47), low back pain (OR 2.79), contralateral knee OA (OR 1.74) and ITB tenderness (OR 1.72) — the chain above and below the lateral wall, plus the strap compressing it [1]. What failed the model: age, race, and BMI — with obesity carrying OR 1.10 (95% CI 0.80–1.52) against normal weight [1]. The internet's explanation for hip bursitis is a weight story; the population data say it is a load-and-company story. The strength file underneath comes from Londrina: women with GTPS were weaker than controls in every hip muscle group tested (p≤0.001), and in single-leg support they ran their rectus abdominis, gluteus maximus and trunk extensors harder to hold the pelvis — effect sizes 0.39 to 0.49 — the trunk and posterior hip compensating for a lateral wall that cannot do its job [14]. That is the mechanistic loop this post's programme breaks: weakness makes single-leg stance costlier, compensation adds compression, compression feeds the tendon file, pain further unloads the wall [5][14]. Which is why the programme's strength half targets the gluteal group specifically — and why the glute-training guide in this library is the natural next click once the acute window closes [6][15].

So what do you actually do? The practical file

Six rules, every one sourced from the files above:

  1. Run the fence first. Groin or deep-buttock pain with a stiff hip is the arthritis/labral door; back pain or sciatica-pattern tingling with the lateral pain is the spine's door (the census ties them at OR 2.79 [1]); position-independent night pain, fever, weight loss or a progressing weakness is the clinician-now door; a fall you cannot bear weight on is imaging today [1][2].
  2. Name it properly. Point tenderness over the greater trochanter, pain on resisted abduction, pain in side-lying and single-leg stance — diagnosed clinically; Trendelenburg's sign is the exam's best single predictor of the tear underneath (72.7%/76.9%) [2]. The bursa is not the diagnosis; the tendon under compression is [2][3][4].
  3. Manage the compression before you buy anything. Stop crossing the legs, sleep with a pillow between the knees, stop standing with the hip hung to one side — the education half of the programme that beat the needle at NNT 5.0 and wait-and-see at NNT 2.0 [5][6]. The foam roller and the massage gun treat the strap by pressing it harder into the tendon; decline both [5].
  4. Load the wall progressively, and keep everything else training. The fourteen-session shape is education first, then progressive gluteal strengthening — twice-supervised, daily-at-home dosing [6][15]; nothing in the file indicts the upper body, the other leg, or zone-2 work, and the Londrina file says the wall needs the strength, not the rest [14]. Let single-leg work be rep-scored and dosed by the pain traffic light, not abandoned.
  5. If you take the shot, know what it is. Real at three months (55% vs 34%, NNT 5), gone by twelve (61% vs 60%) [8] — a bridge across the worst weeks while the programme runs, not the plan; and the survey's two-to-three-shots-a-year habit is the over-reliance to decline [15].
  6. Give the chronic file the shockwave conversation, not the gadget shelf. Pain 6.3 to 2.0 against 4.7 over sham at two months [9], held to six months against active control without buying function [10], everything beyond six months the referee's honest null [11] — a clinician's key for the file that has already trained honestly for three-plus months [11][12].

How RightRep fits into this

The hip-bursitis question is a load-arithmetic and habit-compliance question — which positions, which single-leg dose, which week — and both are unanswerable without a record:

  • The pain×position×load ledger. Every session lands with load, reps and per-rep quality scores; beside a dated symptom note it turns "my hip flares sometimes" into the exact exercise-and-week curve that shows which single-leg dose the wall tolerates — the same ledger discipline the tracking guide brings to every rehab-adjacent block.
  • Camera-counted honesty on the weak wall. The Londrina file measured what the unwatched hip does: it cheats with trunk and posterior-hip compensation [14]. Rep-counted, rep-scored form checks with left/right symmetry reporting are how the gluteal programme stays a gluteal programme — the same honesty every range decision in this library demands.
  • The programme, tracked like a block. Education-plus-exercise is a structured progressive protocol with a published fifty-two-week win [6] — it deserves progressive-overload bookkeeping and a training-frequency slot like any other block, with the shockwave referral parked at the end of a completed log instead of at the start of an empty one [9][11].

The bottom line

  • The scale: 15.0% + 8.5% of women aged 50–79 against 6.6% + 1.9% of men (OR 3.37), population census of 3,026 [1]; mid-life onset, athletes and sedentary alike, sleep-breaking [5].
  • The name: the bursa distended in only 2 of 24 and never without gluteus medius pathology [2]; ultrasound PPV 1.0 for the tendon tears [3]; "previously referred to as trochanteric bursitis" [4].
  • The mechanism: ITB compression of the gluteal tendon against the trochanter in adduction — crossed legs, hung hip, side-sleeping, single-leg stance [5].
  • The spine: education+exercise 51/66 vs 38/65 vs 20/68 at eight weeks — NNT 2.0 over wait-and-see, NNT 5.0 over the injection; still ahead on global improvement at fifty-two weeks; cost-effective against both [6][7].
  • The injection: 55% vs 34% at three months, 61% vs 60% at twelve — a loan, not a plan [8].
  • The adjuncts: shockwave 6.3→2.0 vs 4.7 over sham [9], pain-only to six months [10]; nothing beats control on pain past six months; exercise the only function door [11]; the tDCS gadget null from UNICAMP [13].
  • The prognosis: 90% of partial tears stable over 71 months — waiting rarely catastrophic, never curative [12].
  • The risk file: knee OA, back pain, ITB tenderness on the ticket [1]; BMI acquitted (OR 1.10) [1]; the wall weaker in every hip muscle group, the trunk compensating [14].

Manage the compression, build the wall, keep the barbell loaded — with the camera keeping the compensation honest at rightrep.app.

This post was written by the RightRep AI Assistant — the same AI that counts and scores your reps at rightrep.app.

Sources

  1. Segal NA, Felson DT, Torner JC, Zhu Y, Corpuz M, Guermazi A, Nevitt MC. Greater trochanteric pain syndrome: epidemiology and associated factors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2007;88(8):988–992. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  2. Bird PA, Oakley SP, Shnier R, Kirkham BW. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging findings and physical examination findings in patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 2001;44(9):2138–2145. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  3. Fearon AM, Scarvell JM, Cook JL, et al. Does ultrasound correlate with surgical or histologic findings in greater trochanteric pain syndrome? A pilot study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2010;468(7):1838–1844. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  4. Grimaldi A, Fearon A. Gluteal Tendinopathy: Integrating Pathomechanics and Clinical Features in its Management. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 2015;45(11):910–922. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  5. Grimaldi A, Mellor R, Hodges P, Bennell K, Wajswelner H, Vicenzino B. Gluteal Tendinopathy: A Review of Mechanisms, Assessment and Management. Sports Medicine, 2015;45(8):1107–1119. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  6. Mellor R, Bennell K, Grimaldi A, et al. Education plus exercise versus corticosteroid injection use versus a wait and see approach on global outcome and pain from gluteal tendinopathy: prospective, single blinded, randomised clinical trial. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2018;52(22):1464–1472. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  7. Wilson R, Abbott JH, Mellor R, et al. Education plus exercise for persistent gluteal tendinopathy improves quality of life and is cost-effective compared with corticosteroid injection and no treatment. Journal of Physiotherapy, 2023;69(1):35–41. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  8. Brinks A, van Rijn RM, Willemsen SP, et al. Corticosteroid injections for greater trochanteric pain syndrome: a randomized controlled trial in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 2011;9(3):226–234. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  9. Ramon S, Russo S, Santoboni F, et al. Focused Shockwave Treatment for Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), 2020;102(15):1305–1311. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  10. Carlisi E, Cecini M, Di Natali G, Pantorotto D, Tirinna M, Caldarini C, Manzoni F, Toscanini D. Focused extracorporeal shock wave therapy for greater trochanteric pain syndrome with gluteal tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 2019;33(4):670–680. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  11. Gazendam A, Ekhtiari S, Axelrod D, et al. Comparative Efficacy of Nonoperative Treatments for Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 2022;32(4):427–432. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  12. Schenk P, Dimitriou D, Rahm S, et al. Natural History of Degenerative Hip Abductor Tendon Lesions. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2023;51(1):160–168. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  13. Martins EF, Okumura NL, Silva VSX, et al. Transcranial Direct Current Electric Stimulation Combined with Physical Exercise in Patients with Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: Randomized Clinical Trial. Medical Sciences, 2026;14(2). pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  14. da Cunha APRR, Marcioli MAR, Miyasaki MR, et al. Muscle strength and activation patterns during static and dynamic single-leg support tasks in women with greater trochanteric pain syndrome. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 2025;45:174–180. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  15. French HP, Woodley SJ, Fearon A, et al. Physiotherapy management of greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS): an international survey of current physiotherapy practice. Physiotherapy, 2020;109:111–120. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov