ArticleClinical rehabilitation2026
Exploring the digital landscape: A scoping review of Achilles tendinopathy education on public websites and in randomised controlled trials.
Article in Clinical rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
ObjectivesThe aims of this scoping review were to (i) map education from randomised controlled trials and public websites for Achilles tendinopathy to pre-defined categories and (ii) appraise the quality of education available.Data sourcesSources were extracted via a search of multiple databases and from the first three pages of targeted Google searches in English, Chinese, and Spanish (websites).Review methodsThe frequency of sources that reported on each pre-defined category (n = 15) was reported, and the content within each category was summarised descriptively. Quality and reliability were assessed with the DISCERN tool (1-5 points, higher score means higher quality and trustworthiness). Understandability and actionability of education was assessed using Patient Education Materials Assessment tool (0-100%, higher scores indicate more comprehensible information with clearer messages and more identifiable actions). Alignment with current international guidelines was reported.Results119 randomised controlled trials and 385 websites were included. Education coverage was better in websites compared to trials, particularly related to pathology and management. Conflicting advice was found on websites (e.g. when treatment should be sought). Quality (1.6 ± 0.5) and reliability (2.1 ± 0.7) of education were poor, with low scores for treatment risks and shared decision-making. Understandability was moderate (59%) and actionability was poor (28%). Alignment with clinical guidelines was low, with key information commonly omitted.ConclusionEducational sources found in randomised controlled trials and public websites on Achilles tendinopathy are poorly aligned with clinical guidelines. The information gaps in these sources mean that they are unhelpful to patients and may steer them towards inappropriate decisions. The review highlights the need for the development of accurate, meaningful, and evidence-based educational resources for individuals with Achilles tendinopathy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.