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)

Nurses' experiences of recruitment and migration from developing countries: a phenomenological approach

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Residual deficits in reactive strength indicate incomplete restoration of athletic qualities following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in professional soccer players

Context: Deficits in plyometric abilities are common following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Vertical rebound tasks may provide a targeted evaluation of knee function. Objective: Examine the utility of a vertical hop test to assess function following ACLR and establish factors associated with performance. Design: Cross-sectional Setting: Rehabilitation Participants: Soccer players with a history of ACLR (N = 73) and matched controls (N = 195) Main outcome measures: 10 second vertical hop test including measures of jump height, reactive strength index (RSI) and asymmetry. We also examined possible predictors of hop performance including single leg vertical drop jump (SLDVJ), isokinetic knee extension strength, and the international knee documentation committee questionnaire. Results: Significant between-limb differences were identified for the ACLR group only and asymmetry scores increased in those with a history of ACLR (P < 0.001) compared to controls. SLDVJ RSI and knee extension torque were significant predictors of 10 second hop height (R2 = 20.1%) and RSI (R2 = 47.1%). Conclusions: Vertical hop deficits are present following ACLR even after completing a comprehensive rehabilitation program. This may be due to reduced knee extension and reactive strength. Vertical hop tests warrant inclusion as part of return to sport test battery

The IMO virtual meteor observatory (VMO) : Architectural design

This paper describes the progress on the Virtual Meteor Observatory (VMO), a database which is being developed at ESA/RSSD to store video meteor observations and their derived orbits. The VMO was triggered by a discussion which took place at the first Meteor Orbit Determination (MOD) workshop in Roden, The Netherlands, in September 2006. Representatives of 15 groups working on the determination of meteor orbits and working with the resulting orbits discussed the design and implementation of a database which would combine different meteor orbit datasets. From this the concept of the VMO was born, which will, in the long run, allow accessing meteor observations via the internet. In the beginning, it will focus on meteor orbit data obtained with video systems. This paper presents the architectural design of the database as it has been defined in the meantime.Peer reviewe

Primary cam morphology; bump, burden or bog-standard? A concept analysis

Background Cam morphology, a distinct bony morphology of the hip, is prevalent in many athletes, and a risk factor for hip-related pain and osteoarthritis. Secondary cam morphology, due to existing or previous hip disease (eg, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease), is well-described. Cam morphology not clearly associated with a disease is a challenging concept for clinicians, scientists and patients. We propose this morphology, which likely develops during skeletal maturation as a physiological response to load, should be referred to as primary cam morphology. The aim of this study was to introduce and clarify the concept of primary cam morphology. Design We conducted a concept analysis of primary cam morphology using articles that reported risk factors associated with primary cam morphology; we excluded articles on secondary cam morphology. The concept analysis method is a rigorous eight-step process designed to clarify complex ‘concepts’; the end product is a precise definition that supports the theoretical basis of the chosen concept. Results We propose five defining attributes of primary cam morphology—tissue type, size, site, shape and ownership—in a new conceptual and operational definition. Primary cam morphology is a cartilage or bony prominence (bump) of varying size at the femoral head-neck junction, which changes the shape of the femoral head from spherical to aspherical. It often occurs in asymptomatic male athletes in both hips. The cartilage or bone alpha angle (calculated from radiographs, CT or MRI) is the most common method to measure cam morphology. We found inconsistent reporting of primary cam morphology taxonomy, terminology, and how the morphology is operationalised. Conclusion We introduce and clarify primary cam morphology, and propose a new conceptual and operational definition. Several elements of the concept of primary cam morphology remain unclear and contested. Experts need to agree on the new taxonomy, terminology and definition that better reflect the primary cam morphology landscape—a bog-standard bump in most athletic hips, and a possible hip disease burden in a selected few