Examinando por Autor "Rio, Ebonie K."

Mostrando 1 - 3 de 3
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    Are we asking the right questions to people with Achilles tendinopathy?: the best questions to distinguish mild versus severe disability to improve your clinical management
    (Churchill Livingstone, 2024-05) Murphy, Myles C.; Green, Brady; Sancho Amundarain, Igor; Vos, Robert-Jan de; Rio, Ebonie K.
    Objective: Determine the capacity of individual items on the Tendinopathy Severity Assessment – Achilles (TENDINS-A), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment – Achilles (VISA-A) to differentiate patients with mild and severe tendon-related disability in order to provide clinicians the best questions when they are consulting patients with Achilles tendinopathy. Design: Cross-sectional. Participants: Seventy participants with Achilles tendinopathy (61.4% mid-portion only, 31.4% insertional only, 7.2% both). Outcome measures: The discrimination index was determined for each TENDINS-A, FAOS, and VISA-A item to determine if items could discriminate between mild and severe disability. A Guttman analysis for polytomous items was conducted. Results: All 62 tems from the TENDINS-A, FAOS, and VISA-A were ranked with the best items relating to pain with physical tendon loading, time for pain to settle following aggravating activities and time for the tendon to ‘warm-up’ following inactivity. Conclusions: Pain with loading the Achilles tendon, time for pain to settle following aggravating activity, as well as time taken for the tendon symptoms to subside after prolonged sitting or sleeping are the best questions indicative of the severity of disability in patients with Achilles tendinopathy. These questions can assist clinicians with assessing baseline severity and monitoring treatment response.
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    Exercise parameters to consider for Achilles tendinopathy: a modified Delphi study with international experts
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2025-08-28) Demangeot, Yoann; O'Neill, Seth; Degache, Francis; Rapin, Amandine; Asgher, Umer; Alfredson, Hakan; Chester, Rachel; Chimenti, Ruth L.; Vos, Robert-Jan de; Escriche Escuder, Adrián ; Farnqvist, Kenneth; Habets, Bas; Maffulli, Nicola; Magnusson, Stig Peter; Malliaras, Peter; Murphy, Myles C.; Purdam, Craig R.; Rees, Jonathan D.; Rio, Ebonie K.; Sancho Amundarain, Igor; Scott, Alex; Grävare Silbernagel, Karin; Gremeaux, Vincent; Boyer, François C.; Taiar, Redha
    To assess the level of agreement among experts on the heel raise exercise parameters that influence midportion and insertional Achilles tendinopathy (AT) rehabilitation outcomes. An international expert panel in AT rehabilitation was invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey. In the first two rounds, experts were asked to review a pregenerated list of exercise parameters (based on the heel raise exercise) and rate their perceived influence on rehabilitation outcome, using a 5-point Likert scale. For each parameter, consensus criteria for major influence on rehabilitation were (a) median≥4, (b) ≥75% of scoring 4 or 5 and (c) IQR≤1. The third round aimed to rank the exercise parameters according to importance (from most to least important) during rehabilitation. 17 experts participated in the entire Delphi process. A total of 16 exercise parameters were assessed, of which 4 (intensity of contraction, total time under tension, number of repetitions and sets, type of contraction) reached consensus as having a major influence on rehabilitation for midportion AT and 3 reached consensus for insertional AT (range of ankle dorsiflexion during the exercise, intensity of contraction, number of repetitions and sets). The rankings of parameters that reached consensus showed that contraction intensity was perceived as the most important variable for midportion AT rehabilitation, while range of ankle dorsiflexion was deemed the most important variable for insertional AT rehabilitation. This study identified key exercise parameters for mid-portion and insertional AT rehabilitation based on expert opinion. This information should assist practitioners in optimising their approach to deliver more effective, patient-specific exercises for AT rehabilitation.
  • No hay miniatura disponible
    Ítem
    ICON 2023: International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus – the core outcome set for Achilles tendinopathy (COS-AT) using a systematic review and a Delphi study of professional participants and patients
    (BMJ Publishing Group, 2024-10-22) Vos, Robert-Jan de ; Silbernagel, K.G.; Malliaras, P.; Visser, T.S.; Alfredson, H.; Akker-Scheek, Inge van den; Ark, M. van; Brorsson, A.; Chimenti, R.; Docking, S.; Eliasson, P.; Farnqvist, K.; Haleem, Z.; Hanlon, S.L.; Kaux, J.-F.; Kearney, R.S.; Kirwan, P.D.; Kulig, K.; Kumar, B.; Lewis, T.; Longo, U.G.; Lui, T.H.; Maffulli, N.; Mallows, A.J.; Masci, L.; McGonagle, D.; Morrissey, D.; Murphy, Myles C. ; Newsham-West, R.; Nilsson-Helander, K.M.; Norris, R.; Oliva, F.; O’Neill, S.; Peers, K.; Rio, Ebonie K. ; Sancho Amundarain, Igor ; Scott, A.; Seymore, K.D.; Soh, S.-E.; Vallance, P.; Verhaar, J.A.N.; Vlist, A.C., van der; Weir, A.; Zellers, J.A.; Vicenzino, B.
    To develop a core outcome set for Achilles tendinopathy (COS-AT) for use in clinical trials we performed a five-step process including (1) a systematic review of available outcome measurement instruments, (2) an online survey on truth and feasibility of the available measurement instruments, (3) an assessment of the methodological quality of the selected outcome measurement instruments, (4) an online survey on the outcome measurement instruments as COS and (5) a consensus in-person meeting. Both surveys were completed by healthcare professionals and patients. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology guidelines with a 70% threshold for consensus were followed. We identified 233 different outcome measurement instruments from 307 included studies; 177 were mapped within the International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus core domains. 31 participants (12 patients) completed the first online survey (response rate 94%). 22/177 (12%) outcome measurement instruments were deemed truthful and feasible and their measurement properties were evaluated. 29 participants (12 patients) completed the second online survey (response rate 88%) and three outcome measurement instruments were endorsed: the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles questionnaire, the single-leg heel rise test and evaluating pain after activity using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0–10). 12 participants (1 patient) attended the final consensus meeting, and 1 additional outcome measurement instrument was endorsed: evaluating pain during activity/loading using a VAS (0–10). It is recommended that the identified COS-AT will be used in future clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention. This will facilitate comparing outcomes of intervention strategies, data pooling and further progression of knowledge about AT. As COS-AT is implemented, further evidence on measurement properties of included measures and new outcome measurement instruments should lead to its review and refinement.