Background
Description of the condition
Prevalence of the condition
Description of the intervention
Why is it important to do this review?
Objectives
Methods
Data management
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies
Types of participants
Types of wait-and-see and placebo
Types of traditional physiotherapy
-
Deep friction massage to the tendon, and/or
-
Other forms of manual physical therapy to local tissues, and/or
-
Ultrasound, and/or
-
Strapping tape
Types of interventions
-
Heavy eccentric calf training versus wait-and-see
-
Heavy eccentric calf training versus sham exercise
-
Heavy eccentric calf training versus traditional physiotherapy
-
Heavy eccentric calf training versus different exercise protocols
Types of outcomes measures
Search methods for identification of studies
Electronic searches
-
PubMed
-
CINAHL (Ovid);
-
CINAHL (EBSCO)
Number | Combiners | Terms |
---|---|---|
1 | Problem of interest | Achil* OR triceps surae* OR tend* OR heel OR calcan* |
2 | Intervention | Exercise OR eccentric* OR isotonic* OR heavy slow resistance OR isometrics OR resistance OR strength* OR alfredson* |
3 | #1 AND #2 | |
4 | Outcome | VISA* OR Victorian institute of sport score* |
5 | #3 AND #4 | |
Limitations | Peer reviewed, human, clinical trials |
Searching other resources
-
British Journal of Sports Medicine
-
Sports Medicine
-
American Journal of Sports Medicine
-
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
-
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
-
Journal of Athletic Training
-
Journal of Physiotherapy
-
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
-
Journal of Sports Sciences
-
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports
-
Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy
-
Physical Therapy in Sport
-
Physical Therapy
-
Clinical Rehabilitation
-
Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine
-
Journal of Sports Rehabilitation
-
Physiotherapy
-
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
Unpublished data
-
OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe)
-
Dissertation Abstracts (Proquest)
-
SPORTDiscus
Data collection and analysis
Selection of studies
Data extraction and management
-
Primary author
-
Year of publication
-
Study design
-
Study population (diagnosis)
-
Sample size (including sample size at all follow-up points)
-
Baseline demographics (age, height, weight, BMI, gender, duration of pain and country of study)
-
Loading intervention
-
Adherence to loading intervention
-
Whether a placebo treatment was administered in conjunction with the loading intervention and characteristics of the control
-
Concomitant treatments
-
Mean (SD) of the VISA-A at baseline and the final follow-up time points while undergoing exercise loading.
-
Time (weeks) at each follow-up point
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
Measure of treatment effect
Dealing with missing data
Assessment of heterogeneity
-
Studies in which the standard deviation was inputted as per the methods section above.
-
Studies in which the adherence was not reported.
-
Studies which used different exercise protocols as the comparator to heavy eccentric calf training.
-
Studies in which both heavy eccentric calf training and the exercise intervention used as the comparator both received placebo interventions.
-
Studies in which there was a high-risk of bias as assessed by the RoB 2.0 tool.
Assessment of reporting biases
Assessment of the quality of the body of evidence
Data synthesis
-
Heavy eccentric calf training versus wait-and-see
-
Heavy eccentric calf training versus sham exercise
-
Heavy eccentric calf training versus traditional physiotherapy
-
Heavy eccentric calf training versus different exercise protocols
Sensitivity analysis
-
Studies in which the standard deviation was inputted as per the methods section above.
-
Studies in which the adherence was not reported.
-
Studies which used different exercise protocols as the comparator to heavy eccentric calf training.
-
Studies in which both heavy eccentric calf training and the exercise intervention used as the comparator both received placebo interventions.
-
Studies in which there was a high-risk of bias as assessed by the RoB 2.0 tool.