Patient ratings in exercise therapy for the management of tendinopathy: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise exercise therapy intervention data investigating patient rating outcomes for the management of tendinopathy.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating exercise therapy interventions and reporting patient rating outcomes.

SETTING

Any setting in any country listed as very high on the human development index.

PARTICIPANTS

People with a diagnosis of any tendinopathy of any severity or duration.

INTERVENTIONS

Exercise therapy for the management of tendinopathy comprising five different therapy classes: 1) resistance; 2) plyometric; 3) vibration; 4) flexibility, and 5) movement pattern retraining modalities, were considered for inclusion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes measuring patient rating of condition, including patient satisfaction and Global Rating of Change (GROC).

RESULTS

From a total of 124 exercise therapy studies, 34 (Achilles: 41%, rotator cuff: 32%, patellar: 15%, elbow: 9% and gluteal: 3%) provided sufficient information to be meta-analysed. The data were obtained across 48 treatment arms and 1246 participants. The pooled estimate for proportion of satisfaction was 0.63 [95%CrI: 0.53-0.73], and the pooled estimate for percentage of maximum GROC was 53 [95%CrI: 38-69%]. The proportion of patients reporting positive satisfaction and perception of change increased with longer follow-up periods from treatment onset.

CONCLUSION

Patient satisfaction and GROC appear similar and are ranked moderately high demonstrating that patients generally perceive exercise therapies positively. Further research including greater consistency in measurement tools is required to explore and where possible, identify patient- and exercise-related moderating factors that can be used to improve person-centred care.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO ID=CRD42020168187 CONTRIBUTION OF PAPER.

A systematic review with meta-analysis

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review was to critically appraise and synthesize the psychometric properties of the Global Rating of Change (GRoC) scales on the assessment of patients with low back pain (LBP), upper extremity and lower extremity disorders.

Methods

A search was performed in 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS) until February 2019. Eligible articles were appraised using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and the Quality Appraisal for Clinical Measurement Research Reports Evaluation Form.

Results

The 8 eligible studies included participants with orthopedic lumbar spine impairments (n = 52,767), patients with work-related musculoskeletal disorders (n = 1944), patients with low back pain (n = 183) and individuals with upper extremity disorders (n = 151). Risk of bias was ranging from "adequate" to "very good" and quality was found excellent for all studies. Based on pooled data, test-retest reliability of 11-item GRoC for patients with low back pain was found excellent ICC = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.94. Test-retest reliability in patients with shoulder pain was found fair to good ICC of 0.62 in a 15-point GRoC scale. Seven studies (n = 7) examined the convergent validity between GRoC and another outcome measure. Minimum important change on the Portuguese version of Global Perceived Effect (GPE) for patients with LBP was 2.5 points out of 11 points.

Conclusions

The current pool of clinical measurement studies indicates that the GRoC has excellent test-retest reliability for patients with low back pain, shoulder pain and with lumbar spine disorders. However, the validity of it as a reference standard in responsiveness studies or as an accurate overall assessment of change has been questioned. While future studies might provide more insight into its measurement properties, this limitation is unlikely to change. Therefore, we suggest that future responsiveness in the studies that want a global indicator measure need to use an additional measure to mitigate recall bias.

Prospero registration number

CRD 42020149122.

Clinimetrics Corner: The Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): A Necessary Pretense

Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) are patient derived scores that reflect changes in a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient. At present, there are a number of different methods to obtain an MCID, as there a number of different factors that can influence the MCID value. This clinimetric corner outlines the hidden challenges associated with identifying a viable MCID and possible suggestions to improve the future development of these single scores.