No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionNine 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).

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of a programme of load management education plus exercise, corticosteroid injection use, and no treatment on pain and global improvement in individuals with gluteal tendinopathy.DesignProspective, three arm, single blinded, randomised clinical trial.SettingBrisbane and Melbourne, Australia.ParticipantsIndividuals aged 35-70 years, with lateral hip pain for more than three months, at least 4/10 on the pain numerical rating scale, and gluteal tendinopathy confirmed by clinical diagnosis and magnetic resonance imaging; and with no corticosteroid injection use in previous 12 months, current physiotherapy, total hip replacement, or neurological conditions.InterventionsA physiotherapy led education and exercise programme of 14 sessions over eight weeks (EDX; n=69), one corticosteroid injection (CSI; n=66), and a wait and see approach (WS; n=69).Main outcomesPrimary outcomes were patient reported global rating of change in hip condition (on an 11 point scale, dichotomised to success and non-success) and pain intensity in the past week (0=no pain, 10=worst pain) at eight weeks, with longer term follow-up at 52 weeks.ResultsOf 204 randomised participants (including 167 women; mean age 54.8 years (standard deviation 8.8)), 189 (92.6%) completed 52 week follow-up. Success on the global rating of change was reported at eight weeks by 51/66 EDX, 38/65 CSI, and 20/68 WS participants. EDX and CSI had better global improvement scores than WS (risk difference 49.1% (95% confidence interval 34.6% to 63.5%), number needed to treat 2.0 (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 2.9); 29.2% (13.2% to 45.2%), 3.4 (2.2 to 7.6); respectively). EDX had better global improvement scores than CSI (19.9% (4.7% to 35.0%); 5.0 (2.9 to 21.1)). At eight weeks, reported pain on the numerical rating scale was mean score 1.5 (standard deviation 1.5) for EDX, 2.7 (2.4) for CSI, and 3.8 (2.0) for WS. EDX and CSI participants reported less pain than WS (mean difference −2.2 (95% confidence interval −2.89 to −1.54); −1.2 (−1.85 to −0.50); respectively), and EDX participants reported less pain than CSI (−1.04 (−1.72 to −0.37)). Success on the global rating of change was reported at 52 weeks by 51/65 EDX, 36/63 CSI, and 31/60 WS participants; EDX was better than CSI (20.4% (4.9% to 35.9%); 4.9 (2.8 to 20.6)) and WS (26.8% (11.3% to 42.3%); 3.7 (2.4 to 8.8)). Reported pain at 52 weeks was 2.1 (2.2) for EDX, 2.3 (1.9) for CSI, and 3.2 (2.6) for WS; EDX did not differ from CSI (−0.26 (−1.06 to 0.55)), but both treatments did better than WS (1.13 (−1.93 to −0.33); 0.87 (−1.68 to −0.07); respectively).ConclusionsFor gluteal tendinopathy, education plus exercise and corticosteroid injection use resulted in higher rates of patient reported global improvement and lower pain intensity than no treatment at eight weeks. Education plus exercise performed better than corticosteroid injection use. At 52 week follow-up, education plus exercise led to better global improvement than corticosteroid injection use, but no difference in pain inte...