↓ Skip to main content

Physical therapies for Achilles tendinopathy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 676)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
476 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Physical therapies for Achilles tendinopathy: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1757-1146-5-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel P Sussmilch-Leitch, Natalie J Collins, Andrea E Bialocerkowski, Stuart J Warden, Kay M Crossley

Abstract

Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is a common condition, causing considerable morbidity in athletes and non-athletes alike. Conservative or physical therapies are accepted as first-line management of AT; however, despite a growing volume of research, there remains a lack of high quality studies evaluating their efficacy. Previous systematic reviews provide preliminary evidence for non-surgical interventions for AT, but lack key quality components as outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Statement. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis (where possible) of the evidence for physical therapies for AT management. A comprehensive strategy was used to search 11 electronic databases from inception to September 2011. Search terms included Achilles, tendinopathy, pain, physical therapies, electrotherapy and exercise (English language full-text publications, human studies). Reference lists of eligible papers were hand-searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they evaluated at least one non-pharmacological, non-surgical intervention for AT using at least one outcome of pain and/or function. Two independent reviewers screened 2852 search results, identifying 23 suitable studies, and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias using a modified PEDro scale. Effect size calculation and meta-analyses were based on fixed and random effects models respectively. Methodological quality ranged from 2 to 12 (/14). Four studies were excluded due to high risk of bias, leaving 19 studies, the majority of which evaluated midportion AT. Effect sizes from individual RCTs support the use of eccentric exercise. Meta-analyses identified significant effects favouring the addition of laser therapy to eccentric exercise at 12 weeks (pain VAS: standardised mean difference -0.59, 95% confidence interval -1.11 to -0.07), as well as no differences in effect between eccentric exercise and shock wave therapy at 16 weeks (VISA-A:-0.55,-2.21 to 1.11). Pooled data did not support the addition of night splints to eccentric exercise at 12 weeks (VISA-A:-0.35,-1.44 to 0.74). Limited evidence from an individual RCT suggests microcurrent therapy to be an effective intervention. Practitioners can consider eccentric exercise as an initial intervention for AT, with the addition of laser therapy as appropriate. Shock wave therapy may represent an effective alternative. High-quality RCTs following CONSORT guidelines are required to further evaluate the efficacy of physical therapies and determine optimal clinical pathways for AT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 476 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 469 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 104 22%
Student > Master 91 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 51 11%
Other 40 8%
Student > Postgraduate 39 8%
Other 97 20%
Unknown 54 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 207 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 101 21%
Sports and Recreations 48 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Other 34 7%
Unknown 68 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2021.
All research outputs
#790,197
of 18,414,344 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#30
of 676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,707
of 136,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,414,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 136,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them