Maximising neuromuscular performance in people with pain and injury: Moving beyond reps and sets to understand the challenges and embrace the complexity

Rehabilitative practice is often criticised for being non-individualised, monotonous and not well aligned with foundational principles that drive continued physiological adaptation(s). However, our understanding of neuromuscular physiology is rapidly increasing and the way we programme rehabilitation is improving. This viewpoint highlights some of the potential considerations around why the adaptations achieved during rehabilitation programmes may be suboptimal. We provide basic, clinician-focused discussion about potential confounding physiological factors, and put forward several exercise-based programming recommendations and novel approaches to consider in contemporary rehabilitative practice. Specifically, we outline several potential mechanisms contributing to poor muscle activation and function that might be present following musculoskeletal injury. However, clinicians require strategies capable of attenuating these impairments to restore proper function. Therefore, we also provide an overview of recommended strength and conditioning guidelines, and novel strategies (such as external pacing and electrical stimulation techniques) that clinicians can consider to potentially improve the efficacy of musculoskeletal rehabilitation

Are you translating research into clinical practice? What to think about when it does not seem to be working

Introduction : The value of clinical research can be lost in translation and implementation. One often overlooked issue is whether clinicians can determine if their patient is similar to research participants and, ipso facto, whether the clinician treating that patient will have the same effects as what was reported in a research study. We present five questions and clinical tips for clinicians

Assessment and monitoring of Achilles tendinopathy in clinical practice: A qualitative descriptive exploration of the barriers clinicians face

Our primary objective was to explore the barriers preventing clinicians from implementing what they think is ideal practice as it relates to using tools to aid diagnosis and monitor progress in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy. Our secondary objectives were to describe the assessments employed by clinicians in their own practice to aid with (a) diagnosis and (b) monitoring progress in Achilles tendinopathy and explore the outcome measure domains clinicians believe to be the most and least important when managing patients with Achilles tendinopathy. We employed a qualitative descriptive study design. Thirteen participants (eight female, five male) from across Australia, consisting of two junior physiotherapists, five senior physiotherapists working in private practice, four senior physiotherapists working within elite sports organisations and two sport and exercise medicine doctors, were included and one-on-one interviews were performed. Audio was transcribed then entered into NVivo for coding and analysis. Four main themes were perceived as barriers to implementing ideal practice of assessment and monitoring in people with Achilles tendinopathy: financial constraints, time constraints, access to equipment and patient symptom severity. Assessments related to function, pain on loading, pain over a specified time frame and palpation are commonly used to assist diagnosis. Assessments related to disability, pain on loading, pain over a specified time frame and physical function capacity are used to monitor progress over time. Furthermore, pain on loading and pain over a specified time frame were considered the most important outcome measure domains for assisting diagnosis whereas pain on loading, patient rating of the condition and physical function capacity were the most important outcome measure domains for monitoring progress. A number of barriers exist that prevent clinicians from implementing what they view as ideal assessment and monitoring for Achilles tendinopathy. These barriers should be considered when developing new assessments and in clinical practice recommendations

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)

Assessment and monitoring of Achilles tendinopathy in clinical practice: a qualitative descriptive exploration of the barriers clinicians face

Our primary objective was to explore the barriers preventing clinicians from implementing what they think is ideal practice as it relates to using tools to aid diagnosis and monitor progress in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy. Our secondary objectives were to describe the assessments employed by clinicians in their own practice to aid with (a) diagnosis and (b) monitoring progress in Achilles tendinopathy and explore the outcome measure domains clinicians believe to be the most and least important when managing patients with Achilles tendinopathy. We employed a qualitative descriptive study design. Thirteen participants (eight female, five male) from across Australia, consisting of two junior physiotherapists, five senior physiotherapists working in private practice, four senior physiotherapists working within elite sports organisations and two sport and exercise medicine doctors, were included and one-on-one interviews were performed. Audio was transcribed then entered into NVivo for coding and analysis. Four main themes were perceived as barriers to implementing ideal practice of assessment and monitoring in people with Achilles tendinopathy: financial constraints, time constraints, access to equipment and patient symptom severity. Assessments related to function, pain on loading, pain over a specified time frame and palpation are commonly used to assist diagnosis. Assessments related to disability, pain on loading, pain over a specified time frame and physical function capacity are used to monitor progress over time. Furthermore, pain on loading and pain over a specified time frame were considered the most important outcome measure domains for assisting diagnosis whereas pain on loading, patient rating of the condition and physical function capacity were the most important outcome measure domains for monitoring progress. A number of barriers exist that prevent clinicians from implementing what they view as ideal assessment and monitoring for Achilles tendinopathy. These barriers should be considered when developing new assessments and in clinical practice recommendations

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

ICON 2023: International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus – the core outcome set for Achilles tendinopathy (COS-AT) using a systematic review and a Delphi study of professional participants and patients

To develop a core outcome set for Achilles tendinopathy (COS-AT) for use in clinical trials we performed a five-step process including (1) a systematic review of available outcome measurement instruments, (2) an online survey on truth and feasibility of the available measurement instruments, (3) an assessment of the methodological quality of the selected outcome measurement instruments, (4) an online survey on the outcome measurement instruments as COS and (5) a consensus in-person meeting. Both surveys were completed by healthcare professionals and patients. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology guidelines with a 70% threshold for consensus were followed. We identified 233 different outcome measurement instruments from 307 included studies; 177 were mapped within the International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus core domains. 31 participants (12 patients) completed the first online survey (response rate 94%). 22/177 (12%) outcome measurement instruments were deemed truthful and feasible and their measurement properties were evaluated. 29 participants (12 patients) completed the second online survey (response rate 88%) and three outcome measurement instruments were endorsed: the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles questionnaire, the single-leg heel rise test and evaluating pain after activity using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0–10). 12 participants (1 patient) attended the final consensus meeting, and 1 additional outcome measurement instrument was endorsed: evaluating pain during activity/loading using a VAS (0–10). It is recommended that the identified COS-AT will be used in future clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention. This will facilitate comparing outcomes of intervention strategies, data pooling and further progression of knowledge about AT. As COS-AT is implemented, further evidence on measurement properties of included measures and new outcome measurement instruments should lead to its review and refinement