ICON 2019: International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: Clinical Terminology

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Background Persistent tendon pain that impairs function has inconsistent medical terms that can influence choice of treatment.1 When a person is told they have tendinopathy by clinician A or tendinitis by clinician B, they might feel confused or be alarmed at receiving what they might perceive as two different diagnoses. This may lead to loss of confidence in their health professional and likely adds to uncertainty if they were to search for information about their condition. Clear and uniform terminology also assists inter-professional communication. Inconsistency in terminology for painful tendon disorders is a problem at numerous anatomical sites. Historically, the term ‘tendinitis’ was first used to describe tendon pain, thickening and impaired function (online supplementary figure S1). The term ‘tendinosis’ has also been used in a small number of publications, some of which were very influential.2 3 Subsequently, ‘tendinopathy’ emerged as the most common term for persistent tendon pain.4 5 To our knowledge, experts (clinicians and researchers) or patients have never engaged in a formal process to discuss the terminology we use. We believe that health professionals have not yet agreed on the appropriate terminology for painful tendon conditions.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio

ICON 2019—International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: There are nine core health-related domains for tendinopathy (CORE DOMAINS): Delphi study of healthcare professionals and patients

Background: The absence of any agreed-upon tendon health-related domains hampers advances in clinical tendinopathy research. This void means that researchers report a very wide range of outcome measures inconsistently. As a result, substantial synthesis/meta-analysis of tendon research findings is almost futile despite researchers publishing busily. We aimed to determine options for, and then define, core health-related domains for tendinopathy. Methods: We conducted a Delphi study of healthcare professionals (HCP) and patients in a three-stage process. In stage 1, we extracted candidate domains from clinical trial reports and developed an online survey. Survey items took the form: ‘The ‘candidate domain’ is important enough to be included as a core health-related domain of tendinopathy’; response options were: agree, disagree, or unsure. In stage 2, we administered the online survey and reported the findings. Stage 3 consisted of discussions of the findings of the survey at the ICON (International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus) meeting. We set 70% participant agreement as the level required for a domain to be considered ‘core’; similarly, 70% agreement was required for a domain to be relegated to ‘not core’ (see Results next). Results: Twenty-eight HCP (92% of whom had >10 years of tendinopathy experience, 71% consulted >10 cases per month) and 32 patients completed the online survey. Fifteen HCP and two patients attended the consensus meeting. Of an original set of 24 candidate domains, the ICON group deemed nine domains to be core. These were: (1) patient rating of condition, (2) participation in life activities (day to day, work, sport), (3) pain on activity/loading, (4) function, (5) psychological factors, (6) physical function capacity, (7) disability, (8) quality of life and (9) pain over a specified time. Two of these (2, 6) were an amalgamation of five candidate domains. We agreed that seven other candidate domains were not core domains: range of motion, pain on clinician applied test, clinical examination, palpation, drop out, sensory modality pain and pain without other specification. We were undecided on the other five candidate domains of physical activity, structure, medication use, adverse effects and economic impact. Conclusion: Nine core domains for tendon research should guide reporting of outcomes in clinical trials. Further research should determine the best outcome measures for each specific tendinopathy (ie, core outcome sets)

ICON PART-T 2019-International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus:Recommended standards for reporting participant characteristics in tendinopathy research (PART-T)

We aimed to establish consensus for reporting recommendations relating to participant characteristics in tendon research. A scoping literature review of tendinopathy studies (Achilles, patellar, hamstring, gluteal and elbow) was followed by an online survey and face-to-face consensus meeting with expert healthcare professionals (HCPs) at the International Scientific Tendon Symposium, Groningen 2018. We reviewed 263 papers to form statements for consensus and invited 30 HCPs from different disciplines and geographical locations; 28 completed the survey and 15 attended the meeting. There was consensus that the following data should be reported for cases and controls: sex, age, standing height, body mass, history of tendinopathy, whether imaging was used to confirm pathology, loading tests, pain location, symptom duration and severity, level of disability, comorbidities, physical activity level, recruitment source and strategies, and medication use history. Standardised reporting of participant characteristics aims to benefit patients and clinicians by guiding researchers in the conduct of their studies. We provide free resources to facilitate researchers adopting our recommendations