BackgroundTendinopathy is a common, painful and functionally limiting condition, primarily managed conservatively using exercise therapy.Review questions(i) What exercise interventions have been reported in the literature for which tendinopathies? (ii) What outcomes have been reported in studies investigating exercise interventions for tendinopathy? (iii) Which exercise interventions are most effective across all tendinopathies? (iv) Does type/location of tendinopathy or other specific covariates affect which are the most effective exercise therapies? (v) How feasible and acceptable are exercise interventions for tendinopathies?MethodsA scoping review mapped exercise interventions for tendinopathies and outcomes reported to date (questions i and ii). Thereafter, two contingent systematic review workstreams were conducted. The first investigated a large number of studies and was split into three efficacy reviews that quantified and compared efficacy across different interventions (question iii), and investigated the influence of a range of potential moderators (question iv). The second was a convergent segregated mixed-method review (question v). Searches for studies published from 1998 were conducted in library databases (n= 9), trial registries (n= 6), grey literature databases (n= 5) and Google Scholar. Scoping review searches were completed on 28 April 2020 with efficacy and mixed-method search updates conducted on 19 January 2021 and 29 March 2021.ResultsScoping review– 555 included studies identified a range of exercise interventions and outcomes across a range of tendinopathies, most commonly Achilles, patellar, lateral elbow and rotator cuff-related shoulder pain. Strengthening exercise was most common, with flexibility exercise used primarily in the upper limb. Disability was the most common outcome measured in Achilles, patellar and rotator cuff-related shoulder pain; physical function capacity was most common in lateral elbow tendinopathy.Efficacy reviews– 204 studies provided evidence that exercise therapy is safe and beneficial, and that patients are generally satisfied with treatment outcome and perceive the improvement to be substantial. In the context of generally low and very low-quality evidence, results identified that: (1) the shoulder may benefit more from flexibility (effect sizeResistance:Flexibility= 0.18 [95% CrI 0.07 to 0.29]) and proprioception (effect sizeResistance:Proprioception= 0.16 [95% CrI −1.8 to 0.32]); (2) when performing strengthening exercise it may be most beneficial to combine concentric and eccentric modes (effect sizeEccentricOnly:Concentric+Eccentric= 0.48 [95% CrI −0.13 to 1.1]; and (3) exercise may be most beneficial when combined with another conservative modality (e.g. injection or electro-therapy increasing effect size by ≈0.1 to 0.3).Mixed-method review– 94 studies (11 qualitative) provided evidence that exercise interventions for tendinopathy can largely be considered feasible and acceptable, and that several important factors should be considered when prescribing exercise for tendinopathy, including an awareness of potential barriers to and facilitators of engaging with exercise, patients’ and providers’ prior experience and beliefs, and the importance of patient education, self-management and the patient-healthcare professional relationship.LimitationsDespite a large body of literature on exercise for tendinopathy, there are methodological and reporting limitations that influenced the recommendations that could be made.ConclusionThe findings provide some support for the use of exercise combined with another conservative modality; flexibility and proprioception exercise for the shoulder; and a combination of eccentric and concentric strengthening exercise across tendinopathies. However, the findings must be interpreted within the context of the quality of the available evidence.Future workThere is an urgent need for high-quality efficacy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and qualitative research that is adequately reported, using common terminology, definitions and outcomes.Study registrationThis project is registered as DOI:10.11124/JBIES-20-00175(scoping review); PROSPERO CRD 42020168187 (efficacy reviews);https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/y7sk6/(efficacy review 1);https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/eyxgk/(efficacy review 2);https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/mx5pv/(efficacy review 3); PROSPERO CRD42020164641 (mixed-method review).FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) HTA programme and will be published in full in HTA Journal; Vol. 27, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
