ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
On the usefulness of Thompson´s test with a four-point scale after Achilles tendon rupture, a pilot study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOutcome after an acute Achilles tendon rupture often leaves individual variations in recovery and lingering impairment. Simple and accurate methods to assess healing during early rehabilitation are lacking. In this pilot study, we developed and evaluated a graded assessment procedure based on Thompson´s test. The aim was to examine if foot movement of the injured foot can be reliably assessed with the Four-point Scale of Thompson's test (FST).
methodsThe observed foot movement on the injured side, was graded in four categories, zero to three, in relation to the foot movement on the non-injured side. Assessments of foot movement for 24, non-surgically treated, individuals were performed at 2, 4, 8, 10 and 12 weeks after the injury. The movement was visually measured by two examiners, physiotherapists, and simultaneously measured using a marker based three-dimensional motion analysis system (3D-MA). Visual FST measurements were compared with the 3D-MA-based measurements.For each method, intra- and inter-observer agreement as well as between method agreement was evaluated using AC2 agreement measure and difference plots.
resultsThe intra- and inter observer agreement for the FST showed that that the agreement for examiner 1 was 0.94 and for examiner 2, 0.84 while the agreement between 1 and 2 was 0.83. Intra-observer agreement for the 3D-MA measurements for examiner 1 was 0.84 and for examiner 2 were 0.85 while the agreement between examiner 1 and 2 was 0.70. Agreement between methods for examiner 1 was 0.67 and for examiner 2, 0.57. Both measurement methods showed a similar increase of the average foot movement over the follow-up period.
conclusionsOur findings suggests that the inter- and intra-examiner agreements were high indicating that the scale is reliable within and between raters. The agreements between FST and 3D-MA was moderate indicating that criterion validity needs further studies against a modified marker-based 3D motion analysis.
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.