Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25243736›Full record

SynthesisJournal of athletic training

The utility of clinical measures for the diagnosis of achilles tendon injuries: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Michael Reiman, Ciara Burgi, Eileen Strube, Kevin Prue, Keaton Ray, Amanda Elliott, Adam Goode

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of athletic training. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Tendinopathy.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Acute sensory and motor response to 45-s heavy isometric holds for the plantar flexors in patients with Achilles tendinopathy.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Non-insertional Achilles tendinopathy.EFORT open reviews · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michael ReimanDuke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Ciara Burgi
Eileen Strube
Kevin Prue
Keaton Ray
Amanda Elliott
Adam Goode

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo summarize and evaluate the current diagnostic accuracy of clinical measures used to diagnose Achilles tendon injuries. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases was conducted with key words related to diagnostic accuracy and Achilles tendon injuries. STUDY SELECTION: Original research articles investigating Achilles tendon injuries against an acceptable reference standard were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Three studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment was conducted using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were used to pool sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), and diagnostic odds ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). DATA SYNTHESIS: The SN and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) values for Achilles tendon rupture measures ranged from 0.73 (95% CI = 0.65, 0.81) and 0.30 (95% CI = 0.23, 0.40) to 0.96 (95% CI = 0.93, 0.99) and 0.04 (95% CI = 0.02, 0.10), respectively, whereas SP and positive likelihood ratio (+LR) values ranged from 0.85 (95% CI = 0.72, 0.98) and 6.29 (95% CI = 2.33, 19.96) to 0.93 (95% CI = 0.84, 1.00) and 13.71 (95% CI = 3.54, 51.24), respectively, with the highest SN and SP both reported in the calf-squeeze test. The SN and -LR values for Achilles tendinopathy measures ranged from 0.03 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.08) and 0.97 (95% CI = not reported) to 0.89 (95% CI = 0.75, 0.98) and 0.19 (95% CI = not reported), whereas SP and +LR values ranged from 0.58 (95% CI = 0.38, 0.77) and 2.12 (95% CI = not reported) to 1.00 (95% CI = 1.00, 1.00) and infinity, respectively, with the highest SN and SP reported for morning stiffness and palpation for crepitus. Pooled analyses demonstrated similar diagnostic properties in all 3 clinical measures (arc sign, palpation, and Royal London Hospital test), with SN and -LR ranging from 0.42 (95% CI = 0.23, 0.62) and 0.68 (95% CI = 0.50, 0.93), respectively, for the arc sign, to 0.64 (95% CI = 0.44, 0.81) and 0.48 (95% CI = 0.29, 0.80), respectively, for palpation. Pooled SP and +LR ranged from 0.81 (95% CI = 0.65, 0.91) and 3.15 (95% CI = 1.61, 6.18), respectively, for palpation, to 0.88 (95% CI = 0.74, 0.96) SP for the arc sign and 3.84 (95% CI = 1.69, 8.73) +LR for the Royal London Hospital test.

conclusionsMost clinical measures for Achilles tendon injury have greater diagnostic than screening capability.

Indexed as

Symptom AssessmentAchilles TendonHumansQuality Assurance, Health CareReference StandardsSensitivity and SpecificityTendon Injuriesdiagnostic accuracysensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID25243736
PMCPMC4264655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.