Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Nonsurgical Therapies for the Treatment of Midportion Achilles Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-analysis

Rhim HC., Kim MS., Choi S., Tenforde AS.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 978 on Tendon Injury, published in Orthop J Sports Med (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Meta-analysis
Journal
Orthop J Sports Med (2020)
Reported sample size
978
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
32728589
PMCID
PMC7366412
DOI
10.1177/2325967120930567
Citations
33

Abstract (original English)

Background Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is a common cause of overuse injury in both athletes and nonactive individuals, especially at older ages. Due to the limited number of direct comparisons among interventions, determining the best treatment option can be difficult. Purpose To evaluate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of nonsurgical therapies for midportion AT. Study design Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched from database inception through June 20, 2019. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of nonsurgical therapies for midportion AT using the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles (VISA-A) assessment were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcome was mean change in VISA-A score from baseline. Comparisons between interventions were made through use of random-effects network meta-analysis over the short term (≤3 months) and longer term (>3 to Results A total of 22 studies with 978 patients met the inclusion criteria. In short-term studies, high-volume injection with corticosteroid (HVI+C) along with eccentric exercise (ECC) significantly improved the change of VISA-A score compared with that of ECC alone (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.58-1.58). Compared with ECC, acupuncture showed benefits over both the short term (SMD, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.00-2.13) and l

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research