Background Nine core domains for tendinopathy have been identified. For Achilles tendinopathy there is large variation in outcome measures used, and how these fit into the core domains has not been investigated. Objective To identify all available outcome measures outcome measures used to assess the clinical phenotype of Achilles tendinopathy in prospective studies and to map the outcomes measures into predefined health-related core domains. Design Systematic review. Data Sources Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies Clinical diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy, sample size ≥ ten participants, age ≥ 16 years, and the study design was a randomized or non-randomized clinical trial, observational cohort, single-arm intervention, or case series. Results 9376 studies were initially screened and 307 studies were finally included, totaling 13,248 participants. There were 233 (177 core domain) different outcome measures identified across all domains. For each core domain outcome measures were identified, with a range between 8 and 35 unique outcome measures utilized for each domain. The proportion of studies that included outcomes for predefined core domains ranged from 4% for the psychological factors domain to 72% for the disability domain. Conclusion 233 unique outcome measures for Achilles tendinopathy were identified. Most frequently, outcome measures were used within the disability domain. Outcome measures assessing psychological factors were scarcely used. The next step in developing a core outcome set for Achilles tendinopathy is to engage patients, clinicians and researchers to reach consensus on key outcomes measures. Prospero Registration CRD42020156763.

Purpose The diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for anterior cruciate ligament injury has been reported in previous systematic reviews. Numerous studies in these reviews include subjects with additional knee ligament injury, which could affect the sensitivity of the tests. Meta-analyses have also been performed using methods that do not account for the non-independence of sensitivity and specificity, potentially overestimating diagnostic accuracy. The aim of this study was to report the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for anterior cruciate ligament tears (partial and complete) without concomitant knee ligament injury. Methods A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analyses included studies reporting the specificity and/or sensitivity of tests with or without concomitant meniscal injury. Where possible, pooled diagnostic estimates were calculated with bivariate random-effects modelling to determine the most accurate effect sizes. Diagnostic accuracy values are presented for the anterior drawer, Lachman, Lever sign and pivot shift tests overall and in acute or post-acute presentations. Results Pooled estimates using a bivariate model for overall sensitivity and specificity respectively were as follows: anterior drawer test 83% [95% CI, 77–88] and 85% [95% CI, 64–95]; Lachman test 81% [95% CI, 73–87] and 85% [95% CI, 73–92]; pivot shift test 55% [95% CI, 47–62] and 94% [95% CI, 88–97]; Lever sign test 83% [95% CI, 68–92] and 91% [95% CI, 83–95]. For specific presentations, the sensitivity and specificity of the Lachman test, respectively, were: complete tears 68% [95% CI, 54–79] and 79% [95% CI, 51–93]; post-acute injuries 70% [95% CI, 57–80] and 77% [95% CI, 53–91]. Conclusions The pivot shift and Lever sign were the best tests overall for ruling in or ruling out an anterior cruciate ligament tear, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of the Lachman test, particularly in post-acute presentations and for complete tears, is lower than previously reported. Further research is required to establish more accurate estimates for the Lachman test in acute presentations and partial ligament tears using bivariate analysis. Level of evidence III.

No abstract