Can we really say getting stronger makes your tendon feel better? No current evidence of a relationship between change in Achilles tendinopathy pain or disability and changes in Triceps Surae structure or function when completing rehabilitation: A systematic review

Objectives: Determine if improvements in pain and disability in patients with mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy relate to changes in muscle structure and function whilst completing exercise rehabilitation. Design: A systematic review exploring the relationship between changes in pain/disability and muscle structure/function over time, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Methods: Six online databases and the grey literature were searched from database inception to 16th December 2022 whereas clinical trial registries were searched from database inception to 11th February 2020. We included clinical studies where participants received exercise rehabilitation (± placebo interventions) for mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy if pain/disability and Triceps Surae structure/function were measured. We calculated Cohen\u27s d (95 % confidence intervals) for changes in muscle structure/function over time for individual studies. Data were not pooled due to heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Seventeen studies were included for synthesis. No studies reported the relationship between muscle structure/function and pain/disability changes. Twelve studies reported muscle structure/function outcome measures at baseline and at least one follow-up time-point. Three studies reported improvements in force output after treatment; eight studies demonstrated no change in structure or function; one study did not provide a variation measure, precluding within group change over time calculation. All studies were low quality. Conclusions: No studies explored the relationship between changes in tendon pain and disability and changes in muscle structure and function. It is unclear whether current exercise-based rehabilitation protocols for mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy improve muscle structure or function. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020149970)

Criteria for return to running after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a scoping review

Objective To describe the criteria used to guide clinical decision-making regarding when a patient is ready to return to running (RTR) after ACL reconstruction. Design Scoping review. Data sources The MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, PEDro, SPORT Discus and Cochrane Library electronic databases. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and conducted forward citation tracking. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Reported at least one criterion for permitting adult patients with primary ACL reconstruction to commence running postoperatively. Results 201 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and reported 205 time-based criteria for RTR. The median time from when RTR was permitted was 12 postoperative weeks (IQR=3.3, range 5-39 weeks). Fewer than one in five studies used additional clinical, strength or performance-based criteria for decision-making regarding RTR. Aside from time, the most frequently reported criteria for RTR were: full knee range of motion or amp;gt;95% of the non-injured knee plus no pain or pain amp;lt;2 on visual analogue scale; isometric extensor limb symmetry index (LSI)amp;gt; 70% plus extensor and flexor LSIamp;gt; 70%; and hop test LSIamp;gt; 70%. Conclusions Fewer than one in five studies reported clinical, strength or performance-based criteria for RTR even though best evidence recommends performance-based criteria combined with time-based criteria to commence running activities following ACL reconstruction.The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors

Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for common outcome instruments in patients with a closed humeral shaft fracture - analysis of the FISH randomised clinical trial data

Background: Two common ways of assessing the clinical relevance of treatment outcomes are the minimal important difference (MID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). The former represents the smallest change in the given outcome that makes people feel better, while the latter is the symptom level at which patients feel well.Methods: We recruited 124 patients with a humeral shaft fracture to a randomised controlled trial comparing surgery to nonsurgical care. Outcome instruments included the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, the Constant-Murley score, and two numerical rating scales (NRS) for pain (at rest and on activities). A reduction in DASH and pain scores, and increase in the Constant-Murley score represents improvement. We used four methods (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve, the mean difference of change, the mean change, and predictive modelling methods) to determine the MID, and two methods (the ROC and 75th percentile) for the PASS. As an anchor for the analyses, we assessed patients'satisfaction regarding the injured arm using a 7-item Likert-scale.Results: The change in the anchor question was strongly correlated with the change in DASH, moderately correlated with the change of the Constant-Murley score and pain on activities, and poorly correlated with the change in pain at I rest (Spearman's rho 0.51, -0.40, 0.36, and 0.15, respectively).Depending on the method, the MID estimates for DASH ranged from -6.7 to -11.2, pain on activities from -0.5 to -1.3, and the Constant-Murley score from 6.3 to 13.5.The ROC method provided reliable estimates for DASH (-6.7 points, Area Under Curve [AUC] 0.77), the Constant-Murley Score (7.6 points, AUC 0.71), and pain on activities (-0.5 points, AUC 0.68).The PASS estimates were 14 and 10 for DASH, 2.5 and 2 for pain on activities, and 68 and 74 for the Constant-Murley score with the ROC and 75th percentile methods, respectively.Conclusion: Our study provides credible estimates for the MID and PASS values of DASH, pain on activities and the Constant-Murley score, but not for pain at rest. The suggested cut-offs can be used in future studies and for assessing treatment success in patients with humeral shaft fracture.Peer reviewe

Return to Play practices following hamstring injury: A worldwide survey of 131 premier league football teams

Purpose: Return-to-play (RTP) is an on-going challenge in professional football. Return-to-play related research is increasing. However, it is unknown to what extent the recommendations presented within research are being implemented by professional football teams, and where there are gaps between research and practice. The purposes of this study were 1) to determine if premier-league football teams worldwide follow a RTP continuum, 2) to identify RTP criteria used, and 3) to understand how RTP decision-making occurs in applied practice.Methods: We sent a structured online survey to practitioners responsible for the RTP programme in 310 professional teams from 34 premier-leagues worldwide. The survey comprised 4 sections, based on hamstring muscle injury: (1) criteria used throughout RTP phases, (2) the frequency with which progression criteria were achieved, (3) RTP decision-making process, and (4) challenges to decision-making.Results: One-hundred and thirty-one teams responded with a completed survey (42%). One-hundred and twenty-four teams (95%) used a continuum to guide RTP, assessing a combination of clinical, functional and psychological criteria to inform decisions to progress. One-hundred and five (80%) teams reported using a shared decision-making approach considering the input of multiple stakeholders. Team hierarchy, match- and player-related factors were common challenges perceived to influence decision-making. Conclusions: General research recommendations for RTP and the beliefs and practices of practitioners appear to match with, the majority of teams assessing functional, clinical and psychological criteria throughout a RTP continuum to inform decision-making which is also shared among key-stakeholders. However, specific criteria, metrics and thresholds used, and the specific involvement, dynamics and interactions of staff during decision-making are not clear

Which treatment is most effective for patients with Achilles tendinopathy?:A living systematic review with network meta-analysis of 29 randomised controlled trials

Objective: To provide a consistently updated overview of the comparative effectiveness of treatments for Achilles tendinopathy. Design: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: Multiple databases including grey literature sources were searched up to February 2019. Study eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials examining the effectiveness of any treatment in patients wit

Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C.</p