| 1. |
- Dijkstra, H Paul, et al.
(författare)
-
Primary cam morphology; bump, burden or bog-standard? : A concept analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Sports Medicine. - : BMJ. - 0306-3674 .- 1473-0480. ; 55:21, s. 1212-1221
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Cam morphology, a distinct bony morphology of the hip, is prevalent in many athletes, and a risk factor for hip-related pain and osteoarthritis. Secondary cam morphology, due to existing or previous hip disease (eg, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease), is well-described. Cam morphology not clearly associated with a disease is a challenging concept for clinicians, scientists and patients. We propose this morphology, which likely develops during skeletal maturation as a physiological response to load, should be referred to as primary cam morphology. The aim of this study was to introduce and clarify the concept of primary cam morphology.DESIGN: We conducted a concept analysis of primary cam morphology using articles that reported risk factors associated with primary cam morphology; we excluded articles on secondary cam morphology. The concept analysis method is a rigorous eight-step process designed to clarify complex 'concepts'; the end product is a precise definition that supports the theoretical basis of the chosen concept.RESULTS: We propose five defining attributes of primary cam morphology-tissue type, size, site, shape and ownership-in a new conceptual and operational definition. Primary cam morphology is a cartilage or bony prominence (bump) of varying size at the femoral head-neck junction, which changes the shape of the femoral head from spherical to aspherical. It often occurs in asymptomatic male athletes in both hips. The cartilage or bone alpha angle (calculated from radiographs, CT or MRI) is the most common method to measure cam morphology. We found inconsistent reporting of primary cam morphology taxonomy, terminology, and how the morphology is operationalised.CONCLUSION: We introduce and clarify primary cam morphology, and propose a new conceptual and operational definition. Several elements of the concept of primary cam morphology remain unclear and contested. Experts need to agree on the new taxonomy, terminology and definition that better reflect the primary cam morphology landscape-a bog-standard bump in most athletic hips, and a possible hip disease burden in a selected few.
|
|
| 2. |
- Rio, Ebonie Kendra, et al.
(författare)
-
ICON PART-T 2019-International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus : recommended standards for reporting participant characteristics in tendinopathy research (PART-T)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Sports Medicine. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0306-3674 .- 1473-0480. ; 54:11, s. 627-630
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We aimed to establish consensus for reporting recommendations relating to participant characteristics in tendon research. A scoping literature review of tendinopathy studies (Achilles, patellar, hamstring, gluteal and elbow) was followed by an online survey and face-to-face consensus meeting with expert healthcare professionals (HCPs) at the International Scientific Tendon Symposium, Groningen 2018. We reviewed 263 papers to form statements for consensus and invited 30 HCPs from different disciplines and geographical locations; 28 completed the survey and 15 attended the meeting. There was consensus that the following data should be reported for cases and controls: sex, age, standing height, body mass, history of tendinopathy, whether imaging was used to confirm pathology, loading tests, pain location, symptom duration and severity, level of disability, comorbidities, physical activity level, recruitment source and strategies, and medication use history. Standardised reporting of participant characteristics aims to benefit patients and clinicians by guiding researchers in the conduct of their studies. We provide free resources to facilitate researchers adopting our recommendations.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Vicenzino, Bill, et al.
(författare)
-
ICON 2019-International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus : There are nine core health-related domains for tendinopathy (CORE DOMAINS): Delphi study of healthcare professionals and patients
- 2020
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Sports Medicine. - : BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP. - 0306-3674 .- 1473-0480. ; 54:8, s. 444-451
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionNine 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).
|
|
