Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28194638›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2017

Achilles tendon injuries.

Anthony C Egger, Mark J Berkowitz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Anthony C EggerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 2049 E 100th St, Desk A40, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. eggera@ccf.org.
Mark J BerkowitzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 2049 E 100th St, Desk A40, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe purpose of this study is to review the current literature of Achilles tendon injuries, specifically chronic tendinopathy and acute ruptures in regard to etiology, diagnosis, treatment options, and outcomes. RECENT

findingsThe incidence of Achilles tendon injuries is increasing, but the necessity for surgical intervention is decreasing due to improved conservative therapies, which may provide comparable outcomes without the implied surgical risk. If surgery is undertaken, no difference has been noted between open and minimally invasive techniques. The majority of patients are able to return to pre-injury level of activity, with the elite athlete as an unfortunate exception. Achilles injuries can be devastating injuries, but if addressed early and appropriately, most patients have good self-reported long-term outcomes regardless of the treatment modality implemented. Further research is needed into the etiology, potential preventative measures, and longer-term outcomes of the different treatment options for wide range of Achilles pathology.

Indexed as

Acute Achilles ruptureChronic Achilles tendinopathy

Identifiers

PMID28194638
PMCPMC5344857

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.