Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVicenzino, Bill
dc.contributor.authorde Vos, Robert-Jan
dc.contributor.authorAlfredson, Håkan
dc.contributor.authorBahr, Roald
dc.contributor.authorCook, Jill L.
dc.contributor.authorCoombes, Brooke K.
dc.contributor.authorFu, Siu Ngor
dc.contributor.authorSilbernagel, Karin Grävare
dc.contributor.authorGrimaldi, Alison
dc.contributor.authorLewis, Jeremy S.
dc.contributor.authorMaffulli, Nicola
dc.contributor.authorMagnusson, Stig Peter
dc.contributor.authorMalliaras, Peter
dc.contributor.authorMc Auliffe, Seán
dc.contributor.authorOei, Edwin H
dc.contributor.authorPurdam, Craig R.
dc.contributor.authorRees, Jonathan D.
dc.contributor.authorRio, Ebonie Kendra
dc.contributor.authorScott, Alex
dc.contributor.authorSpeed, Cathy
dc.contributor.authorvan den Akker-Scheek, Inge
dc.contributor.authorWeir, Adam
dc.contributor.authorWolf, Jennifer Moriatis
dc.contributor.authorZwerver, Johannes
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-05T10:58:14Z
dc.date.available2020-05-05T10:58:14Z
dc.date.created2020-01-28T15:32:38Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationBritish Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019, 54(8), 444-451.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0306-3674
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2653330
dc.descriptionNo commercial re-use.en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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).en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.subjectconsensus
dc.subjectevidence based
dc.subjectmeasurement
dc.subjecttendinopathy
dc.subjecttreatment
dc.titleICON 2019—International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: There are nine core health-related domains for tendinopathy (CORE DOMAINS): Delphi study of healthcare professionals and patientsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020.en_US
dc.source.pagenumber444-451en_US
dc.source.journalBritish Journal of Sports Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bjsports-2019-100894
dc.identifier.cristin1784406
dc.description.localcodeSeksjon for idrettsmedisinske fag / Department of Sports Medicineen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode2


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record