ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods.

BACKGROUND: When research evidence is limited, inconsistent, or absent, healthcare decisions and policies need to be based on consensus amongst interested stakeholders. In these processes, the knowledge, experience, and expertise of health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public are systematically collected and synthesised to reach agreed clinical recommendations and/or priorities. However, despite the influence of consensus exercises, the methods used to achieve agreement are often poorly reported. The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) guideline was developed to help report any consensus methods used in biomedical research, regardless of the health field, techniques used, or application. This explanatory document facilitates the use of the ACCORD checklist. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This paper was built collaboratively based on classic and contemporary literature on consensus methods and publications reporting their use. For each ACCORD checklist item, this explanation and elaboration document unpacks the pieces of information that should be reported and provides a rationale on why it is essential to describe them in detail. Furthermore, this document offers a glossary of terms used in consensus exercises to clarify the meaning of common terms used across consensus methods, to promote uniformity, and to support understanding for consumers who read consensus statements, position statements, or clinical practice guidelines. The items are followed by examples of reporting items from the ACCORD guideline, in text, tables and figures. CONCLUSIONS: The ACCORD materials - including the reporting guideline and this explanation and elaboration document - can be used by anyone reporting a consensus exercise used in the context of health research. As a reporting guideline, ACCORD helps researchers to be transparent about the materials, resources (both human and financial), and procedures used in their investigations so readers can judge the trustworthiness and applicability of their results/recommendations.

Consensus methods in patellofemoral pain: how rigorous are they? A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians treating patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) rely on consensus statements to make the best practice recommendations in the absence of definitive evidence on how to manage PFP. However, the methods used to generate and assess agreement for these recommendations have not been examined. Our objective was to map the methods used to generate consensus-based recommendations for PFP and apply four novel questions to assess the rigour of consensus development. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Embase from inception to May 2022 to identify consensus-derived statements or practice guidelines on PFP. The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis was followed to map the existing evidence. We measured the consensus methods based on four sets of questions addressing the panel composition, application of the consensus method chosen, agreement process and the use of evidence mapping. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All consensus statements or clinical guidelines on PFP were considered. RESULTS: Twenty-two PFP consensus statements were identified. Panel composition: 3 of the 22 (14%) consensus groups reported the panellists' experience, 2 (9%) defined a desired level of expertise, 10 (45%) reported panellist sex and only 2 (9%) included a patient. Consensus method: 7 of 22 (32%) reported using an established method of consensus measurement/development. Agreement process: 10 of 22 (45%) reported their consensus threshold and 2 (9%) acknowledged dissenting opinions among the panel. Evidence mapping: 6 of 22 (27%) reported using systematic methods to identify relevant evidence gaps. CONCLUSIONS: PFP consensus panels have lacked diversity and excluded key partners including patients. Consensus statements on PFP frequently fail to use recognised consensus methods, rarely describe how 'agreement' was defined or measured and often neglect to use systematic methods to identify evidence gaps.

Current practice, guideline adherence, and barriers to implementation for Achilles tendinopathy rehabilitation: a survey of physical therapists and people with Achilles tendinopathy.

Objective: To explore clinical practice patterns of physical therapists (PTs) who treat people with Achilles tendinopathy (AT), and identify perceived barriers and facilitators for prescribing and engaging with therapeutic exercise among PTs and people with AT. Methods: Two cross-sectional surveys were electronically distributed between November 2021 and May 2022; one survey was designed for PTs while the second was for people with AT. Survey respondents answered questions regarding their physical therapy training and current practice (PTs), injury history and management (people with AT), and perceived barriers and facilitators (PTs and people with AT). Results: 341 PTs and 74 people with AT completed the surveys. In alignment with clinical practice guidelines, more than 94% of PTs surveyed (97% of whom had some form of advanced musculoskeletal training) prioritise patient education and therapeutic exercise. Patient compliance, patient knowledge, and the slow nature of recovery were barriers to prescribing therapeutic exercise reported by PTs, while time, physical resources, and a perceived lack of short-term treatment effectiveness were barriers for people with AT. Conclusions: Consistent with clinical practice guidelines, PTs with advanced training reported prioritising therapeutic exercise and education for managing AT. However, both PTs and people with AT identified many barriers to prescribing or engaging with therapeutic exercise. By addressing misconceptions about the time burden and ineffectiveness of exercise, and by overcoming access issues to exercise space and equipment, PTs may be able to improve intervention adherence and subsequently outcomes for people with AT.

ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi.

BACKGROUND: In biomedical research, it is often desirable to seek consensus among individuals who have differing perspectives and experience. This is important when evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited, or absent. Even when research evidence is abundant, clinical recommendations, policy decisions, and priority-setting may still require agreement from multiple, sometimes ideologically opposed parties. Despite their prominence and influence on key decisions, consensus methods are often poorly reported. Our aim was to develop the first reporting guideline dedicated to and applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research regardless of the objective of the consensus process, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We followed methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network for the development of reporting guidelines: a systematic review was followed by a Delphi process and meetings to finalize the ACCORD checklist. The preliminary checklist was drawn from the systematic review of existing literature on the quality of reporting of consensus methods and suggestions from the Steering Committee. A Delphi panel (n = 72) was recruited with representation from 6 continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy, and patient perspectives. The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54, and 51 panelists. The preliminary checklist of 56 items was refined to a final checklist of 35 items relating to the article title (n = 1), introduction (n = 3), methods (n = 21), results (n = 5), discussion (n = 2), and other information (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: The ACCORD checklist is the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus-based studies. It will support authors in writing accurate, detailed manuscripts, thereby improving the completeness and transparency of reporting and providing readers with clarity regarding the methods used to reach agreement. Furthermore, the checklist will make the rigor of the consensus methods used to guide the recommendations clear for readers. Reporting consensus studies with greater clarity and transparency may enhance trust in the recommendations made by consensus panels.

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.

The one-week and three-month reliability of acceleration outcomes from an insole-embedded inertial measurement unit during treadmill running.

Inertial measurement units (IMUs) represent an exciting opportunity for researchers to broaden our understanding of running-related injuries, and for clinicians to expand their application of running gait analysis. The primary aim of our study was to investigate the 1-week (short-term) and 3-month (long-term) reliability of peak resultant, vertical, and anteroposterior accelerations derived from insole-embedded IMUs. The secondary aim was to assess the reliability of peak acceleration variability and left-right limb symmetry in all directions over the short and long term. A sample of healthy adult rearfoot runners (n = 23; age 41.7 ± 11.2 years) ran at a variety of speeds (2.5 m/s, 3.0 m/s, and 3.5 m/s) on a treadmill in standardised footwear with insole-embedded IMUs in each shoe. Peak accelerations exhibited good to excellent short-term reliability and moderate to excellent long-term reliability in all directions. Peak acceleration variability showed poor to good short- and long-term reliability, whereas the symmetry of peak accelerations demonstrated moderate to excellent and moderate to good short- and long-term reliability, respectively. Our results demonstrate how insole-embedded IMUs represent a viable option for clinicians to measure peak accelerations within the clinic.

Are psychosocial variables, sleep characteristics or central pain processing prognostic factors for outcome following rotator cuff repair? A protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Prognosis following surgical rotator cuff repair (RCR) is often established through the assessment of non-modifiable biomedical factors such as tear size. This understates the complex nature of recovery following RCR. There is a need to identify modifiable psychosocial and sleep-related variables, and to find out whether changes in central pain processing influence prognosis after RCR. This will improve our knowledge on how to optimise recovery, using a holistic rehabilitation approach. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This longitudinal study will analyse 141 participants undergoing usual care for first time RCR. Data will be collected 1-21 days preoperatively (T1), then 11-14 weeks (T2) and 12-14 months (T3) postoperatively. We will use mixed-effects linear regression to assess relationships between potential prognostic factors and our primary and secondary outcome measures-the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index; the Constant-Murley Score; the Subjective Shoulder Value; Maximal Pain (Numeric Rating Scale); and Quality of Life (European Quality of Life, 5 dimensions, 5 levels). Potential prognostic factors include: four psychosocial variables; pain catastrophising, perceived stress, injury perceptions and patients' expectations for RCR; sleep; and four factors related to central pain processing (central sensitisation inventory, temporal summation, cold hyperalgesia and pressure pain threshold). Intercorrelations will be assessed to determine the strength of relationships between all potential prognostic indicators.Our aim is to explore whether modifiable psychosocial factors, sleep-related variables and altered central pain processing are associated with outcomes pre-RCR and post-RCR and to identify them as potential prognostic factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of the study will be disseminated at conferences such as the European Pain Congress. One or more manuscripts will be published in a peer-reviewed SCI-ranked journal. Findings will be reported in accordance with the STROBE statement and PROGRESS framework. Ethical approval is granted by the Ethical commission of Canton of Zurich, Switzerland, No: ID_2018-02089 TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04946149.

Differences in Peak Impact Accelerations Among Foot Strike Patterns in Recreational Runners.

Introduction: Running-related injuries (RRIs) occur from a combination of training load errors and aberrant biomechanics. Impact loading, measured by peak acceleration, is an important measure of running biomechanics that is related to RRI. Foot strike patterns may moderate the magnitude of impact load in runners. The effect of foot strike pattern on peak acceleration has been measured using tibia-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs), but not commercially available insole-embedded IMUs. The aim of this study was to compare the peak acceleration signal associated with rearfoot (RFS), midfoot (MFS), and forefoot (FFS) strike patterns when measured with an insole-embedded IMU. Materials and Methods: Healthy runners ran on a treadmill for 1 min at three different speeds with their habitual foot strike pattern. An insole-embedded IMU was placed inside standardized neutral cushioned shoes to measure the peak resultant, vertical, and anteroposterior accelerations at impact. The Foot strike pattern was determined by two experienced observers and evaluated using high-speed video. Linear effect mixed-effect models were used to quantify the relationship between foot strike pattern and peak resultant, vertical, and anteroposterior acceleration. Results: A total of 81% of the 187 participants exhibited an RFS pattern. An RFS pattern was associated with a higher peak resultant (0.29 SDs; p = 0.029) and vertical (1.19 SD; p < 0.001) acceleration when compared with an FFS running pattern, when controlling for speed and limb, respectively. However, an MFS was associated with the highest peak accelerations in the resultant direction (0.91 SD vs. FFS; p = 0.002 and 0.17 SD vs. RFS; p = 0.091). An FFS pattern was associated with the lowest peak accelerations in both the resultant and vertical directions. An RFS was also associated with a significantly greater peak acceleration in the anteroposterior direction (0.28 SD; p = 0.033) than an FFS pattern, while there was no difference between MFS and FFS patterns. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that runners should be grouped by RFS, MFS, and FFS when comparing peak acceleration, rather than the common practice of grouping MFS and FFS together as non-RFS runners. Future studies should aim to determine the risk of RRI associated with peak accelerations from an insole-embedded IMU to understand whether the small observed differences in this study are clinically meaningful.

2022 Bern Consensus Statement on Shoulder Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Return to Sport for Athletes at All Participation Levels.

SYNOPSIS: There is an absence of high-quality evidence to support rehabilitation and return-to-sport decisions following shoulder injuries in athletes. The Athlete Shoulder Consensus Group was convened to lead a consensus process that aimed to produce best-practice guidance for clinicians, athletes, and coaches for managing shoulder injuries in sport. We developed the consensus via a 2-round Delphi process (involving more than 40 content and methods experts) and an in-person meeting. This consensus statement provides guidance with respect to load and risk management, supporting athlete shoulder rehabilitation, and decision making during the return-to-sport process. This statement is designed to offer clinicians the flexibility to apply principle-based approaches to managing the return-to-sport process within a variety of sporting backgrounds. The principles and consensus of experts working across multiple sports may provide a template for developing additional sport-specific guidance in the future. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(1):11-28. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10952.

Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 1-definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Primary cam morphology is a mostly benign bony prominence that develops at the femoral head-neck junction of the hip, but it is highly prevalent in many athlete populations. In the small proportion of athletes for whom it is not benign, the resulting hip osteoarthritis can be debilitating. Clinicians, athletes, patients and researchers do not yet agree on important primary cam morphology elements. We aimed to ascertain and improve the level of agreement on primary cam morphology definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome measures. METHODS: To collect and aggregate informed opinions, an expert panel-the Young Athlete's Hip Research Collaborative-rated primary cam morphology definition, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome statements through an online Delphi exercise followed by an online meeting to explore areas of tension and dissent. Reporting followed Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies. RESULTS: A diverse and inclusive Delphi panel (n=65 for rounds 1 and 2, representing 18 countries; 6 stakeholder groups; 40% women) agreed on 35 of 47 statements in 4 domains, while surfacing areas of tension and dissent. This Delphi panel agreed on four key issues essential to moving research and clinical care forward around primary cam morphology. They agreed on: (1) definition, confirming its conceptual attributes (tissue type, size, location, shape and ownership); (2) terminology-use 'morphology' and not terms with a negative connotation like 'lesion', 'abnormality' or 'deformity'; (3) taxonomy, distinguishing between primary and secondary cam morphology, and (4) imaging outcomes, a continuous bone/cartilage alpha angle on radial femoral head-neck MRI for primary cam morphology aetiology research. CONCLUSION: This consensus provides athletes, patients, clinicians and researchers with a strong foundation to guide more precise communication, better clinical decision-making and higher value research about primary cam morphology and its natural history.

Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 2-research priorities on conditions affecting the young person's hip.

INTRODUCTION: Primary cam morphology is highly prevalent in many athlete populations, causing debilitating hip osteoarthritis in some. Existing research is mired in confusion partly because stakeholders have not agreed on key primary cam morphology elements or a prioritised research agenda. We aimed to inform a more rigorous, inclusive and evidence-based approach to research on primary cam morphology and its natural history by working towards agreement on a set of research priorities for conditions affecting the young person's hip. METHODS: An international expert panel-the Young Athlete's Hip Research (YAHiR) Collaborative-rated research priority statements through an online two-round Delphi exercise and met online to explore areas of tension and dissent. Panellists ranked the prioritised research statements according to the Essential National Health Research (ENHR) ranking strategy. Reporting of results followed REPRISE (REporting guideline for PRIority SEtting of health). RESULTS: A diverse Delphi panel (n=65, Delphi rounds 1 and 2; three ENHR strategy surveys: n=49; n=44; n=42) from 18 countries representing six stakeholder groups, prioritised and ranked 18 of 38 research priority statements. The prioritised statements outlined seven research domains: (1) best practice physiotherapy, (2) rehabilitation progression and return to sport, (3) exercise intervention and load management, (4) primary cam morphology prognosis and aetiology, (5) femoroacetabular impingement syndrome prognosis and aetiology, (6) diagnostic criteria, and (7) screening. The panel recommended areas of tension and dissent for the research community to focus on immediately. CONCLUSION: While informing more rigorous, inclusive and evidence-based research, this consensus is a roadmap for researchers, policy-makers and funders to implement research dedicated to reducing the cost and burden of hip disease related to primary cam morphology.

Three New Digital Features From JOSPT in 2020.

The JOSPT editorial team details digital developments since the beginning of 2020: JOSPT's website redesign, the launches of the JOSPT Insights podcast and JOSPT blog, and the JOSPT Asks video series. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(9):471-472. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0107.