Outcome measures in the management of gluteal tendinopathy: a systematic review of their measurement properties.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate properties of outcome measures for gluteal tendinopathy. DESIGN: Multistage scoping/systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDISCUS were searched (December 2021) to identify measures used to evaluate gluteal tendinopathy. Measures were mapped to the core health domains for tendinopathy. Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PubMed were searched (December 2021) for studies evaluating measurement properties of gluteal tendinopathy outcome measures captured in the initial search. Both reviews included studies that evaluated a treatment in participants with gluteal tendinopathy, diagnosed by a professional. Consensus-based-Standards for the Selection of Health Instruments methodology were followed-including bias assessment and synthesis of findings. RESULTS: Six studies reported on the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Gluteal Tendinopathy (VISA-G). One study reported on the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-activities of daily living (ADL) and Sport.The VISA-G had moderate-quality evidence of sufficient construct validity (known group) and responsiveness (pre-post intervention), low-quality evidence of sufficient reliability, measurement error, comprehensibility and insufficient construct validity (convergent), and very low-quality evidence of sufficient comprehensiveness, relevance and responsiveness (comparison with other outcome measures).Both the HOS(ADL) and HOS(Sport) had very low-quality evidence of sufficient reliability, relevance and insufficient construct validity and comprehensiveness. The HOS(ADL) had very low-quality evidence of sufficient comprehensibility and insufficient measurement error. The HOS(Sport) had very low quality evidence of inconsistent comprehensibility and sufficient measurement error. CONCLUSION: Rigorously validated outcome measures for gluteal tendinopathy are lacking. The VISA-G is the preferred available option to capture the disability associated with gluteal tendinopathy.

Comparison between 2000 and 2018 on the reporting of statistical significance and clinical relevance in physiotherapy clinical trials in six major physiotherapy journals: a meta-research design.

DESIGN: Meta-research. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of reporting p values, effect estimates and clinical relevance in physiotherapy randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the years 2000 and 2018. METHODS: We performed a meta-research study of physiotherapy RCTs obtained from six major physiotherapy peer-reviewed journals that were published in the years 2000 and 2018. We searched the databases Embase, Medline and PubMed in May 2019, and extracted data on the study characteristics and whether articles reported on statistical significance, effect estimates and confidence intervals for baseline, between-group, and within-group differences, and clinical relevance. Data were presented using descriptive statistics and inferences were made based on proportions. A 20% difference between 2000 and 2018 was regarded as a meaningful difference. RESULTS: We found 140 RCTs: 39 were published in 2000 and 101 in 2018. Overall, there was a high prevalence (>90%) of reporting p values for the main (between-group) analysis, with no difference between years. Statistical significance testing was frequently used for evaluating baseline differences, increasing from 28% in 2000 to 61.4% in 2018. The prevalence of reporting effect estimates, CIs and the mention of clinical relevance increased from 2000 to 2018 by 26.6%, 34% and 32.8% respectively. Despite an increase in use in 2018, over 40% of RCTs failed to report effect estimates, CIs and clinical relevance of results. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of using p values remains high in physiotherapy research. Although the proportion of reporting effect estimates, CIs and clinical relevance is higher in 2018 compared to 2000, many publications still fail to report and interpret study findings in this way.

Has Reporting on Physical Therapy Interventions Improved in 2 Decades? An Analysis of 140 Trials Reporting on 225 Interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the completeness of reporting of physical therapy interventions in randomized controlled trials before and after publication of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist (a reporting guideline for interventions). DESIGN: Meta-research. METHODS: We searched 6 journals for trials using physical therapy interventions that were published in 2000 and 2018. Two independent assessors scored the TIDieR checklist and extracted descriptive information, including Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale scores. We identified control or treatment interventions, exercise-based interventions, and area of physical therapy. We performed a descriptive analysis and defined a priori a 20% difference between studies published in 2000 and 2018 as meaningful. We assessed correlations between TIDieR and PEDro scale scores for all interventions. RESULTS: In total, 140 articles that met selection criteria evaluated 225 interventions (2000, n = 61; 2018, n = 164). Mean ± SD TIDieR score (2000, 7.52 ± 2.62; 2018, 8.26 ± 2.26) did not show a meaningful difference between years for all interventions (+5%), controls (+6%), treatment interventions (+6%), exercise-based interventions (+9%), or musculoskeletal (+4%) or neurological (+7%) physical therapy. For exercise interventions, number of sessions was reported more (+21%) in 2018 than in 2000. For musculoskeletal trials, 2 items were reported more completely in 2018 than in 2000 (materials, +29%; individual versus group, +22%) and 3 items were reported more completely in neurological trials (mode of delivery, +20%, [item 8.1] when +45%, and assessment of fidelity, +20%). The item "Who delivered the intervention?" was reported less completely (-23%) in 2018 than in 2000 in neurological trials. We found no correlation (r = 0.12) between PEDro scale score and TIDieR score. CONCLUSION: There were few meaningful improvements in how physical therapy interventions were described after publication of the TIDieR reporting guideline. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(10):503-509. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10642.

Proximal hamstring tendinopathy; expert physiotherapists' perspectives on diagnosis, management and prevention.

OBJECTIVES: To explore and summarise expert physiotherapists' perceptions on their assessment, management and prevention of proximal hamstring tendinopathy (PHT). METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with expert physiotherapists until data saturation was met (n = 13). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed systematically and organised into categories and sub-categories according to study aims. RESULTS: Experts report using a clinical reasoning-based approach, incorporating information from the patient interview and results of clinical load-based provocation tests, in the physical examination to diagnose PHT. Experts manage the condition through education and progressive loading targeting the hamstring unit and kinetic chain, avoiding provocative activities in positions of compression in early-mid stage rehab and a gradated and controlled return to sport. Passive therapies including injection therapies and surgery were believed to have limited utility. Prevention of recurrence primarily involved continuation of hamstring and kinetic chain strengthening programs and management of physical workload. CONCLUSION: Experts rely on a combination of information from the patient interview and a battery of pain provocation tests to diagnose PHT. Education and graded exercise of the hamstring group and synergists, minimising early exposure to hip flexion, were the foundation of management of the condition.