The Physical Demands of Wheelchair Tennis Match Play: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Wheelchair tennis, a globally popular sport, features a professional tour spanning 40 countries and over 160 tournaments. Despite its widespread appeal, information about the physical demands of wheelchair tennis is scattered across various studies, necessitating a comprehensive systematic review to synthesise available data. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to provide a detailed synthesis of the physical demands associated with wheelchair tennis, encompassing diverse factors such as court surfaces, performance levels, sport classes, and sexes. METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases, covering articles from inception to March 1, 2023. Forward and backward citation tracking from the included articles was carried out using Scopus, and we established eligibility criteria following the Population, Exposure, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design (PECOS) framework. Our study focused on wheelchair tennis players participating at regional, national, or international levels, including both juniors and adults, and open and quad players. We analysed singles and doubles matches and considered sex (male, female), sport class (open, quad), and court surface type (hard, clay, grass) as key comparative points. The outcomes of interest encompassed play duration, on-court movement, stroke performance, and physiological match variables. The selected study designs included observational cross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention studies (baseline data only). We calculated pooled means or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and employed a random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation. We assessed heterogeneity using Cochrane Q and 95% prediction intervals. RESULTS: Our literature search retrieved 643 records, with 24 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Most available information focused on international male wheelchair tennis players in the open division, primarily competing in singles on hard courts. Key findings (mean [95% CI]) for these players on hard courts were match duration 65.9 min [55.0-78.8], set duration 35.0 min [28.2-43.5], game duration 4.6 min [0.92-23.3], rally duration 6.1 s [3.7-10.2], effective playing time 19.8% [18.9-20.7], and work-to-rest ratio 1:4.1 [1:3.7-1:4.4]. Insufficient data were available to analyse play duration for female players. However, for the available data on hard court matches, the average set duration was 34.8 min [32.5-37.2]. International male players on hard court covered an average distance per match of 3859 m [1917-7768], with mean and peak average forward speeds of 1.06 m/s [0.85-1.32] and 3.55 m/s [2.92-4.31], respectively. These players executed an average of 365.9 [317.2-422.1] strokes per match, 200.6 [134.7-299.0] per set, 25.4 [16.7-38.7] per game, and 3.4 [2.6-4.6] per rally. Insufficient data were available for a meta-analysis of female players' on-court movement and stroke performance. The average and peak heart rates of international male players on hard court were 134.3 [124.2-145.1] and 166.0 [132.7-207.6] beats per minute, and the average match heart rate expressed as a percentage of peak heart rate was 74.7% [46.4-100]. We found no studies concerning regional players or juniors, and only one study on doubles match play. CONCLUSIONS: While we present a comprehensive overview of the physical demands of wheelchair tennis, our understanding predominantly centres around international male players competing on hard courts in the open division. To attain a more comprehensive insight into the sport's physical requirements, future research should prioritise the inclusion of data on female and quad players, juniors, doubles, and matches played on clay and grass court surfaces. Such endeavours will facilitate the development of more tailored and effective training programmes for wheelchair tennis players and coaches. The protocol for this systematic review was registered a priori at the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (Registration https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.3.0060 ).

How low back pain is managed-a mixed methods study in 32 countries. Part 2 of Low Back Pain in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Series.

BACKGROUND: The Lancet Series of Low Back Pain (LBP) highlighted the lack of LBP data from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The study aimed to describe (1) what LBP care is currently delivered in LMICs, and (2) how that care is delivered. METHODS: An online mixed-methods study. A Consortium for LBP in LMICs (n=65) was developed with an expert panel of leading LBP researchers (>2 publications on LBP) and multidisciplinary clinicians and patient partners with five years of clinical/lived LBP experience in LMICs. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Two researchers independently analyzed qualitative data using deductive and inductive coding and developed a thematic framework. FINDINGS: Forty-seven (85%) of 55 invited panel members representing 32 LMICs completed the survey (38% women; 62% men). The panel included clinicians (34%), researchers (28%), educators (6%), and patient partners (4%). Pharmacotherapies and electrophysiological agents were the most used LBP treatments. The Thematic Framework comprised of eight themes: (1) Self-management is ubiquitous; (2) Medicines are the cornerstone; (3) Traditional therapies have a place; (4) Society plays an important role; (5) Imaging use is very common; (6) Reliance on passive approaches; (7) Social determinants influence LBP care pathway; and (8) Health systems are ill-prepared to address LBP burden. INTERPRETATION: LBP care in LMICs did not consistently align with the best available evidence. Findings will help research prioritization in LMICs and guide global LBP clinical guidelines. FUNDING: The lead author's Fellowship was supported by the International Association for the Study of Pain.

Learning Health Systems: A Paradigm Shift in What We Can Do about Digital Health Inequities.

Learning health systems (LHSs) embed social accountability into everyday workflows and can inform how governments build bridges across the digital health divide. They shape partnerships using rapid cycles of data-driven learning to respond to patients' calls to action for equity from digital health. Adopting the LHS approach involves re-distributing power, which is likely to be met with resistance. We use the LHS example of British Columbia's 811 services to highlight how infrastructure was created to provide care and answer questions about access to digital health, outcomes from it and the financial impact passed on to patients. In the concluding section, we offer an accountability framework that facilitates partnerships in making digital health more equitable.

Trustworthy Evidence to Support Quality Digital Healthcare Policy for Underserved Communities: What Needs to Happen to Translate Evidence into Policy?

In this paper, we explore what is needed to generate quality research to guide evidence-informed digital health policy and call the Canadian community of patients, clinicians, policy (decision) makers and researchers to action in setting digital health research priorities for supporting underserved communities. Using specific examples, we describe how evidence is produced and implemented to guide digital health policy. We study how research environments must change to reflect and include the communities for whom the policy is intended. Our goal is to guide how future evidence reaches policy makers to help them shape healthcare services and how these services are delivered to underserved communities in Canada. Understanding the pathways through which evidence can make a difference to equitable and sustainable digital health policy is vital for guiding the types of research that attract priority resources.

Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide.

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C.

The effects of eating frequency on changes in body composition and cardiometabolic health in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Eating frequency may affect body weight and cardiometabolic health. Intervention trials and observational studies have both indicated that high- and low-frequency eating can be associated with better health outcomes. There are currently no guidelines to inform how to advise healthy adults about how frequently to consume food or beverages. AIM: To establish whether restricted- (≤ three meals per day) frequency had a superior effect on markers of cardiometabolic health (primary outcome: weight change) compared to unrestricted-eating (≥ four meals per day) frequency in adults. METHODS: We searched Medline (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CAB Direct and Web of Science Core Collection electronic databases from inception to 7 June 2022 for clinical trials (randomised parallel or cross-over trials) reporting on the effect of high or low-frequency eating on cardiometabolic health (primary outcome: weight change). Trial interventions had to last for at least two weeks, and had to have been conducted in human adults. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Seventeen reports covering 16 trials were included in the systematic review. Data from five trials were excluded from meta-analysis due to insufficient reporting. 15 of 16 trials were at high risk of bias. There was very low certainty evidence of no difference between high- and low-frequency eating for weight-change (MD: -0.62 kg, CI95: -2.76 to 1.52 kg, p = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: There was no discernible advantage to eating in a high- or low-frequency dietary pattern for cardiometabolic health. We cannot advocate for either restricted- or unrestricted eating frequency to change markers of cardiometabolic health in healthy young to middle-aged adults. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD42019137938.

Ranking versus rating in peer review of research grant applications.

The allocation of public funds for research has been predominantly based on peer review where reviewers are asked to rate an application on some form of ordinal scale from poor to excellent. Poor reliability and bias of peer review rating has led funding agencies to experiment with different approaches to assess applications. In this study, we compared the reliability and potential sources of bias associated with application rating with those of application ranking in 3,156 applications to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Ranking was more reliable than rating and less susceptible to the characteristics of the review panel, such as level of expertise and experience, for both reliability and potential sources of bias. However, both rating and ranking penalized early career investigators and favoured older applicants. Sex bias was only evident for rating and only when the applicant's H-index was at the lower end of the H-index distribution. We conclude that when compared to rating, ranking provides a more reliable assessment of the quality of research applications, is not as influenced by reviewer expertise or experience, and is associated with fewer sources of bias. Research funding agencies should consider adopting ranking methods to improve the quality of funding decisions in health research.

Athletes' experiences of using a self-directed psychological support, the BAck iN the Game (BANG) smartphone application, during rehabilitation for return to sports following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), many athletes do not return to their sport, often driven by concerns about re-injury. Psychological support strategies might help, but are not routinely included in rehabilitation after ACLR. The BAck iN the Game (BANG) intervention is a 24-week eHealth program delivered via smartphone application (app), beginning directly after ACLR, with a self-directed approach that aims to target the specific challenges athletes encounter in rehabilitation. AIM: To describe athletes' experiences of using the BANG app during rehabilitation, to support returning to sport following ACLR. METHOD: Participants were athletes, in contact and/or non-contact pivoting sports, who had ACLR with the goal to return to sports. Semi-structured, individual interviews were conducted 6-10 months after their ACLR; all had access to the BANG intervention. Verbatim transcripts were analysed with a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The 19 participants were 17-30 years, mean 21.6 years (SD 3.5); 7 men and 12 women. The analysis generated three main categories. (A) Interacting with the app illustrated how, when, or why the participants engaged with the app. The app was helpful because of its varying content, the notifications served as reminders and participants stopped using the app when no longer needing it. (B) Challenging experiences with the app illustrated that the app itself came with some difficulties e.g., content not appearing with the right timing and material not tailored to their sport. (C) Supportive experiences with the app reflected how the app facilitated the participants' rehabilitation progress; it included positive aspects of the app content and navigation, boosting their confidence to return to sport, and motivated them to continue with rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: The analysis of the interviews illustrates athletes' awareness in interacting with, and the challenging and supportive experiences of using the app. The BANG app might provide support for returning to sport, primarily psychological support, as an adjunct to regular physiotherapy-guided rehabilitation. Athletes' experiences of the BANG app could be improved by healthcare professionals providing additional advice about when to use which content and why. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03959215. Registered 22 May 2019.

What's in a Name? Introducing Movement Science Media: The JOSPT Community's Guide to Quality Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Content.

SYNOPSIS: The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy was first published in the summer of 1979 by the Orthopaedic and Sports Sections of the American Physical Therapy Association. The journal's mission was to publish scientifically rigorous content and promote its application to movement-related health. In 1979, we were focused solely on 1 journal, and the publishing organization shared the journal's name. In the decades since, our organization has grown such that it now publishes 3 peer-reviewed journals and provides plenty of additional resources to help the musculoskeletal rehabilitation community translate quality research to quality practice. We are pleased to reintroduce ourselves as Movement Science Media. We aspire to deliver your one-stop shop for trustworthy content-helping you stay informed about the latest in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-3. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12209.

Minimal important difference, patient acceptable symptom state and longitudinal validity of oxford elbow score and the quickDASH in patients with tennis elbow.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the short version of Disabilities of Arms, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) are common patient-reported outcomes for people with elbow problems. Our primary objective was to define thresholds for the Minimal Important Difference (MID) and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the OES and QuickDASH. The secondary aim was to compare the longitudinal validity of these outcome measures. METHODS: We recruited 97 patients with clinically-diagnosed tennis elbow for a prospective observational cohort study in a pragmatic clinical setting. Fifty-five participants received no specific intervention, 14 underwent surgery (11 as primary treatment and 4 during follow-up), and 28 received either botulinum toxin injection or platelet rich plasma injection. We collected OES (0 to 100, higher is better) and QuickDASH (0 to 100, higher is worse), and global rating of change (as an external transition anchor question) at six weeks, three months, six months and 12 months. We defined MID and PASS values using three approaches. To assess the longitudinal validity of the measures, we calculated the Spearman's correlation coefficient between the change in the outcome scores and external transition anchor question, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) from a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. To assess signal-to-noise ratio, we calculated standardized response means. RESULTS: Depending on the method, MID values ranged from 16 to 21 for OES Pain; 10 to 17 for OES Function; 14 to 28 for OES Social-psychological; 14 to 20 for OES Total score, and - 7 to -9 for QuickDASH. Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) cut offs were 74 to 84 for OES Pain; 88 to 91 for OES Function; 75 to 78 with OES Social-psychological; 80 to 81 with OES Total score and 19 to 23 with Quick-DASH. OES had stronger correlations with the anchor items, and AUC values suggested superior discrimination (between improved and not improved) compared with QuickDASH. OES also had superior signal-to-noise ratio compared with QuickDASH. CONCLUSION: The study provides MID and PASS values for OES and QuickDASH. Due to better longitudinal validity, OES may be a better choice for clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02425982 (first registered April 24, 2015).

Physical Demands of Tennis Across the Different Court Surfaces, Performance Levels and Sexes: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tennis is a multidirectional high-intensity intermittent sport for male and female individuals played across multiple surfaces. Although several studies have attempted to characterise the physical demands of tennis, a meta-analysis is still lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe and synthesise the physical demands of tennis across the different court surfaces, performance levels and sexes. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to 19 April, 2022. A backward citation search was conducted for included articles using Scopus. The PECOS framework was used to formulate eligibility criteria. POPULATION: tennis players of regional, national or international playing levels (juniors and adults). EXPOSURE: singles match play. Comparison: sex (male/female), court surface (hard, clay, grass). OUTCOME: duration of play, on-court movement and stroke performance. STUDY DESIGN: cross-sectional, longitudinal. Pooled means or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation was performed. The measures of heterogeneity were Cochrane Q and 95% prediction intervals. Subgroup analysis was used for different court surfaces. RESULTS: The literature search generated 7736 references; 64 articles were included for qualitative and 42 for quantitative review. Mean [95% confidence interval] rally duration, strokes per rally and effective playing time on all surfaces were 5.5 s [4.9, 6.3], 4.1 [3.4, 5.0] and 18.6% [15.8, 21.7] for international male players and 6.4 s [5.4, 7.6], 3.9 [2.4, 6.2] and 20% [17.3, 23.3] for international female players. Mean running distances per point, set and match were 9.6 m [7.6, 12.2], 607 m [443, 832] and 2292 m [1767, 2973] (best-of-5) for international male players and 8.2 m [4.4, 15.2], 574 m [373, 883] and 1249 m [767, 2035] for international female players. Mean first- and second-serve speeds were 182 km·h-1 [178, 187] and 149 km·h-1 [135, 164] for international male players and 156 km·h-1 95% confidence interval [151, 161] and 134 km·h-1 [107, 168] for international female players. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study provide a comprehensive summary of the physical demands of tennis. These results may guide tennis-specific training programmes. We recommend more consistent measuring and reporting of data to enable future meta-analysts to pool meaningful data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review was registered a priori at the Open Science Framework (Registration DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MDWFY ).

Introducing JOSPT Open: An Inclusive Journal to Support the Work of a Diverse Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Community.

SYNOPSIS: This editorial introduces JOSPT Open, a new gold open-access journal in the JOSPT stable. In 2023, JOSPT Open will publish its inaugural issue. The journal aims to cover all aspects of musculoskeletal rehabilitation and associated areas related to musculoskeletal health, including clinical biomechanics, diagnostic imaging, epidemiology, physical activity, sports science, and pain neuroscience. JOSPT Open welcomes diverse approaches to studying interesting and important clinical questions, and innovative approaches to translating knowledge to practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(2):52-54. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11769.

Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.

Sport and exercise medicine/physiotherapy publishing has a gender/sex equity problem: we need action now!

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine (1) the proportion of women authors overall, in first (lead) and last (senior) author positions, (2) the proportion of women research participants and (3) the association between women in first and/or last author positions and the proportion of women research participants in original research articles and editorials/opinion pieces in four sport and exercise medicine/physiotherapy journals. METHODS: The journals evaluated were the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, Physical Therapy in Sport and International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy.We reviewed all original research articles and editorials/opinion pieces published in 2008, 2009, 2018 and 2019. For each, we aimed to determine the gender/sex of all authors (through gender pronouns, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, institutional profiles, personal websites, photographs and/or social media), and the gender/sex of study participants reported as 'female' or 'male' or 'women' or 'men' or 'girls' or 'boys'. RESULTS: We included 952 original studies and 219 editorials/opinion pieces. There were 5146 authors of original studies and 706 authors of editorials/opinion pieces. Compared with 2008/2009, the proportion of women as first and last authors was 3.6% (33.0% compared with 29.4%) and 4.8% (33.2% compared with 27.4%) higher respectively in 2018/2019. On average, the proportion of women participants in original studies remained largely unchanged over the 10-year period, only 10% of all participants were women in studies. CONCLUSION: Women are strikingly under-represented in first and last author positions, as are women participants in sports and exercise medicine/physiotherapy journals.

Biopsychosocial Factors Associated With Return to Preinjury Sport After ACL Injury Treated Without Reconstruction: NACOX Cohort Study 12-Month Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The limited research on prognosis after nonsurgical management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury has focused on physical factors. We aimed to assess relationships between key patient-reported outcomes, in line with a biopsychosocial approach, and returning to preinjury sport at 12 months after ACL injury treated without reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that biopsychosocial factors would be associated with returning to preinjury sport at 12 months after ACL injury. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective single cohort study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2. METHODS: Patients who had an ACL injury and did not have reconstruction during the first year after injury were recruited from healthcare clinics in Sweden, and followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months after injury. Return to preinjury sport at 12 months was the primary outcome. Explanatory variables were psychological readiness to return to sport, knee-related quality of life, and self-reported knee function. Using generalized estimating equations, we evaluated the relationships between the explanatory variables and the primary outcome at each timepoint. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 88 participants with a median age of 27 years (15-40 years). Soccer was the most frequently reported preinjury sport (n = 22). Forty participants (46%) had returned to their preinjury sport at 12 months after ACL injury. The odds of returning to preinjury sport at 12 months increased with higher self-reported knee function at 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1), and the odds of being returned to the preinjury sport at 12 months doubled for every 1-point increase (1-10 scale) in psychological readiness to return to sport measured at 12 months (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2). CONCLUSION: Superior self-reported knee function at 6 months and greater psychological readiness to return to sport at 12 months were associated with returning to the preinjury sport 1 year after ACL injury treated without reconstruction. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Consider highlighting the relevance of biopsychosocial factors to returning to preinjury sport after ACL injury when discussing prognosis during shared decision-making.

Examination of the validity of the Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport (I-PRRS) scale in male professional football players: A worldwide study of 29 professional teams.

Perceived confidence is an important dimension of an athlete's psychological readiness to return-to-play. However, there is no established and validated tool to evaluate confidence in professional football. This study aimed to provide preliminary evaluation of the internal structure of the Injury-Psychological Readiness to Return-to-Sport scale (I-PRRS) in a cohort of injured male professional footballers. Over an 18-month period, 29 teams from 17 leagues participated. Players sustaining injuries eliciting ≥ 3 weeks' time-loss were recruited. Cross culturally adapted to 4 further languages, the I-PRRS was administered on two occasions: 1) day before returning-to-training and 2) day before returning-to-match-play. In total, 113 injuries were recorded with 96 completed I-PRRS data sets collected. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated the I-PRRS was a unidimensional scale, with all items measuring the same construct. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (ω = .88). When examining longitudinal invariance of the I-PRRS across administration time-points, indices of model fit supported scalar invariance. There was preliminary evidence of good internal structure for the I-PRRS in professional male footballers. However, before further research involving the I-PRRS can be endorsed, efforts to confirm or refute empirical developments pertaining to psychological readiness are necessary.

OPTIKNEE 2022: consensus recommendations to optimise knee health after traumatic knee injury to prevent osteoarthritis.

The goal of the OPTIKNEE consensus is to improve knee and overall health, to prevent osteoarthritis (OA) after a traumatic knee injury. The consensus followed a seven-step hybrid process. Expert groups conducted 7 systematic reviews to synthesise the current evidence and inform recommendations on the burden of knee injuries; risk factors for post-traumatic knee OA; rehabilitation to prevent post-traumatic knee OA; and patient-reported outcomes, muscle function and functional performance tests to monitor people at risk of post-traumatic knee OA. Draft consensus definitions, and clinical and research recommendations were generated, iteratively refined, and discussed at 6, tri-weekly, 2-hour videoconferencing meetings. After each meeting, items were finalised before the expert group (n=36) rated the level of appropriateness for each using a 9-point Likert scale, and recorded dissenting viewpoints through an anonymous online survey. Seven definitions, and 8 clinical recommendations (who to target, what to target and when, rehabilitation approach and interventions, what outcomes to monitor and how) and 6 research recommendations (research priorities, study design considerations, what outcomes to monitor and how) were voted on. All definitions and recommendations were rated appropriate (median appropriateness scores of 7-9) except for two subcomponents of one clinical recommendation, which were rated uncertain (median appropriateness score of 4.5-5.5). Varying levels of evidence supported each recommendation. Clinicians, patients, researchers and other stakeholders may use the definitions and recommendations to advocate for, guide, develop, test and implement person-centred evidence-based rehabilitation programmes following traumatic knee injury, and facilitate data synthesis to reduce the burden of knee post-traumatic knee OA.

A Sneak Peek at JOSPT Collections: Coming Soon for JOSPT Subscribers.

SYNOPSIS: JOSPT has published scientifically rigorous, clinically-relevant musculoskeletal rehabilitation- and sports-related content for over 40 years. The benefit of so many years of JOSPT is a rich back catalogue of quality musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports content. To harness the back catalogue, the Journal is launching JOSPT Collections-designed as a bundle of quality, clinically-focused content related to a core musculoskeletal rehabilitation theme. Here we share some of the knowledge translation content that accompanies the first JOSPT Collections topic: Achilles tendinopathy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(11):703-704. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11575.