A systematic review and meta-analysis of conservative management of Achilles tendinopathy

Full text

Page 1

REVIEWOpen Access
Physical therapies for Achilles tendinopathy:
systematic review and meta-analysis
Samuel P Sussmilch-Leitch1†, Natalie J Collins1,2†, Andrea E Bialocerkowski3†, Stuart J Warden4†
and Kay M Crossley1,2,5*†
Abstract
Background: Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is a common condition, causing considerable morbidity in athletes and
non-athletes alike. Conservative or physical therapies are accepted as first-line management of AT; however, despite
a growing volume of research, there remains a lack of high quality studies evaluating their efficacy. Previous
systematic reviews provide preliminary evidence for non-surgical interventions for AT, but lack key quality
components as outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)
Statement. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis (where possible) of the
evidence for physical therapies for AT management.
Methods: A comprehensive strategy was used to search 11 electronic databases from inception to September
2011. Search terms included Achilles, tendinopathy, pain, physical therapies, electrotherapy and exercise (English
language full-text publications, human studies). Reference lists of eligible papers were hand-searched. Randomised
controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they evaluated at least one non-pharmacological, non-surgical intervention
for AT using at least one outcome of pain and/or function. Two independent reviewers screened 2852 search
results, identifying 23 suitable studies, and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias using a modified PEDro
scale. Effect size calculation and meta-analyses were based on fixed and random effects models respectively.
Results: Methodological quality ranged from 2 to 12 (/14). Four studies were excluded due to high risk of bias,
leaving 19 studies, the majority of which evaluated midportion AT. Effect sizes from individual RCTs support
the use of eccentric exercise. Meta-analyses identified significant effects favouring the addition of laser
therapy to eccentric exercise at 12 weeks (pain VAS: standardised mean difference −0.59, 95% confidence
interval −1.11 to −0.07), as well as no differences in effect between eccentric exercise and shock wave therapy at
16 weeks (VISA-A:–0.55,–2.21 to 1.11). Pooled data did not support the addition of night splints to eccentric
exercise at 12 weeks (VISA-A:–0.35,–1.44 to 0.74). Limited evidence from an individual RCT suggests microcurrent
therapy to be an effective intervention.
Conclusions: Practitioners can consider eccentric exercise as an initial intervention for AT, with the addition of laser
therapy as appropriate. Shock wave therapy may represent an effective alternative. High-quality RCTs following
CONSORT guidelines are required to further evaluate the efficacy of physical therapies and determine optimal
clinical pathways for AT.
Keywords: Achilles tendon, Tendinopathy, Physical therapy modalities
* Correspondence: k.crossley@uq.edu.au
†Equal contributors
1Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC,
Australia
2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Melbourne School of Engineering,
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
JOURNAL OF FOOT
AND ANKLE RESEARCH
© 2012 Sussmilch-Leitch et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15

Page 2

Background
Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is the generic descriptor
used to describe the clinical presentation of activity-
related Achilles tendon pain, focal tendon tenderness
and intratendinous imaging changes. It is a common
condition causing considerable morbidity in athletes and
non-athletes alike [1,2]. Symptoms can occur at the mid-
portion or insertion of the tendon, with the underlying
pathology reflecting a failed healing response [3,4],
where both inflammatory and degenerative pathologies
exist. Histology studies indicate that the pathology is
predominantly of tendon degeneration (‘tendinosis’) as
opposed to the historically hypothesised inflammation
(‘tendinitis’) [5-7] and can develop long before the onset
of symptoms. This may result in advanced underlying
pathology prior to clinical presentation, which has reper-
cussions for management, as well as outcome expecta-
tions of both the clinician and patient. It also may partly
explain why some individuals develop recalcitrant AT
[8] and may progress to full tendon rupture [9].
Conservative orphysical
accepted as the first line approach for managing AT
[10-12], and can be used in isolation or in conjunction
with pharmacological and injectable agents. Surgical
approaches are usually reserved for the most recalci-
trant cases. Physical therapies for AT include exercise,
electrotherapeuticmodalities,
braces and splints. These are often used in a multi-
modal approach for the purpose of alleviating symp-
toms and promoting functional recovery.
Although the evidence base for physical therapies
for AT continues to evolve, there remains a lack of
evidence for their efficacy from high-quality studies.
McLauchlan and Handoll [13] performed the first sys-
tematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
for AT interventions, identifying nine eligible studies.
The authors concluded there to be insufficient evi-
dence to recommend any intervention for the man-
agement ofAT. More
examined non-surgical treatment of midportion [14]
andinsertional[11] AT.
reported that eccentric exercises had the most evi-
dence for their efficacy in treating midportion AT, but
the authors were not able to conduct a meta-analysis
due to heterogeneity between treatment groups. Kear-
ney and Costa [11] restricted the scope of their sys-
tematic review to studies of insertional AT, which
limited the number of RCTs retrieved to one. To
compensate, they included all other study designs
other than single case studies and, as a result, their
conclusions were based on studies lower on the hier-
archy of scientific evidence. Nevertheless, the authors
reported a lack of evidence regarding interventions for
insertional AT.
therapiesare generally
soft tissue therapies,
recentsystematicreviews
Magnussenetal.[14]
Previous systematic reviews for the conservative man-
agement of AT provide useful summaries of the available
evidence; however, they lack key quality components of
systematic reviews as outlined in the Preferred Reporting
of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
statement [15]. Notably, none of the reviews conducted
methodological quality assessment of the included stud-
ies, calculated effect sizes or performed meta-analyses.
Considering this, and recent increases in research output
in the field, it is timely to provide an updated synthesis
of the evidence for non-surgical, non-pharmacological
management options for AT. The aim of this study was
to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis (where
possible) of the evidence for physical therapies for the
management of AT.
Methods
The study design was developed in consultation with
PRISMA guidelines [15].
Eligibility criteria
Studies eligible for inclusion were RCTs evaluating the
effect of at least one non-surgical, non-pharmacological
intervention on pain and/or altered function associated
with AT. Achilles tendinopathy was defined as partici-
pants experiencing one or more common signs or symp-
toms (tenderness on palpation, pain at rest or during
activity, stiffness during activity, and impaired function),
either in the midportion or insertional region of the
Achilles tendon. The diagnosis of AT had to be made by
a healthcare or medical practitioner. No restrictions
were placed on the duration of participant symptoms, or
length of treatment or follow up period. Studies were
excluded if they included results that had been reported
in previous publications, or if they included participants
with symptoms related to Achilles rupture, rheumato-
logical disease or the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics.
The search was limited to studies available in full-text,
written in English and evaluating human participants.
Identification of studies
A comprehensive search strategy was developed using
the National Health and Medical Research Council
guidelines [16]. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cu-
mulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature
(CINAHL), Health and Medical Complete, Proquest,
Australian Medical Index (AMI), Australian Sport Data-
base (AUSPORT), AUSPORT Medical, Physiotherapy
Evidence Database (PEDro), and Clinical Evidence data-
bases were searched from their earliest record to
September 13th2011. The search strategy for Medline
(Additional file 1) was adapted for use in the other data-
bases. Secondary searching was conducted by reviewing
reference lists of eligible papers.
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 2 of 16

Page 3

Titles, abstracts and full text articles, where necessary,
were screenedfor eligibility
reviewers (KC and SW). Discrepancies were discussed in
a consensus meeting and the opinion of a third inde-
pendent reviewer (AB) was sought if agreement could
not be achieved.
bytwo independent
Methodological quality assessment
A modified version of the Physiotherapy Evidence Data-
base (PEDro) scale [17] was used to assess the methodo-
logical quality of included studies (Additional file 2).
Three additional criteria were added to the existing 11
PEDro criteria to evaluate sample size, validity and reli-
ability of outcome measures, and reporting of adverse or
side effects [18]. One point was awarded for each criter-
ion that was clearly satisfied according to prespecified
guidelines, and the 14 items summed to give a total
methodological quality score out of 14. The modified
PEDro scale has been used in previous systematic
reviews [18-20] and has good inter-rater reliability
(κ 0.73 to 0.82) [18]. Two reviewers (SSL and AB) com-
pleted formal training for using the PEDro scale [17] and
independently rated each eligible study. A consensus
meeting was held to resolve any discrepancies between
the reviewers. When the two reviewers could not reach
agreement, a third independent reviewer was consulted
(SW).
The risk of bias was established for each study, using
specific criteria from the modified PEDro scale. These
were chosen after consulting the PRISMA Statement
[15] as well as recommendations made by the Cochrane
Collaboration [21]. Six criteria were used in the assess-
ment: i) adequacy of randomisation (criterion two); ii)
allocation concealment (criterion three); iii) between-
group baseline comparability (criterion four); iv) blinding
of outcome assessors (criterion seven); v) adequate
follow-up (more than 85%) (criterion eight), and; vi)
intention to treat analysis (criterion nine). A score of five
or six was considered to have a low risk of bias, three to
four a moderate risk, and two or less a high risk. Studies
that had a high risk of bias were excluded from further
analyses.
Data extraction and analysis
The kappa (κ) statistic was used to calculate the inter-
rater reliability of the modified PEDro scores. The mag-
nitude of agreement was defined as per Hopkins [22],
where 0.9 to 1.0 represented almost perfect to perfect
agreement, 0.7 to 0.9 very high agreement, 0.5 to
0.7 high agreement, 0.3 to 0.5 moderate agreement,
0.1 to 0.3 small agreement, and 0.0 to 0.1 very small
agreement.
Data extraction was performed by one author (SSL)
andincludedparticipantcharacteristics,diagnostic
criteria, AT characteristics, interventions, outcome mea-
sures and outcome data. For studies that utilised more
than one outcome measure for pain and/or function,
outcome data for a disease-specific outcome of pain
and/or function was extracted. If this was not possible, a
commonly-used outcome measure was chosen (e.g. pain
visual analogue scale). If insufficient data were presented
for calculation of effect sizes, an attempt was made to
electronically contact the corresponding author for fur-
ther information. Calculations of mean differences
(SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated
by Review Manager software [23] using an inverse vari-
ance method and fixed effects model for individual stud-
ies. Where studies had sufficient homogeneity in
participant characteristics, interventions, outcome mea-
sures and follow up times, a meta-analysis of outcome
data was performed. Meta-analyses were conducted
using a random effects model, as some pooled studies
had a heterogeneity greater than 50%, which was deter-
mined using an I2statistical assessment of inconsistency
[24]. Interpretation of SMDs was conducted as per
Hopkins [22], where an effect size of 4.0 was considered
to represent an extremely large clinical effect, 2.0 to 4.0
a very large effect, 1.2 to 2.0 a large effect, 0.6 to 1.2 a
moderate effect, 0.2 to 0.6 a small effect, and 0.0 to 0.2
a trivial effect. Negative values favoured the intervention
of interest and a null effect was considered for 95% CIs
that contained zero.
Results
The search strategy identified 2852 studies, of which 68
required further full-text screening (Figure 1). Twenty-
three primary studies met the inclusion criteria. The
studies were conducted across nine countries: Germany
[25-31], United Kingdom [32-36], Sweden [37-40], Den-
mark [41,42], New Zealand [43], Northern Ireland [44],
Norway [45], Canada [46] and The Netherlands [47].
Methodological quality
The two reviewers had initial agreement on 297 out of
322 criteria (κ=0.941, 95% CI 0.904 to 0.978) (Table 1),
and reached consensus on all criteria. The inter-rater re-
liability for individual criteria ranged from high to per-
fect (κ=0.621 to 1.000). Quality assessment scores
ranged between two and 12 out of a maximum of 14
(mean±SD 7.8±2.9). Reporting of random group alloca-
tion and the results of between-group statistical compar-
isons were scored by all studies. Criteria that were met
by the least number of studies were blinding of thera-
pists (one study), and reliability and validity of outcome
measures (two studies). Four studies were considered to
have a high risk of bias [28,36,37,41], and were subse-
quently excluded from further analyses, leaving 19 stud-
ies remaining.
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 3 of 16

Page 4

Participant characteristics
Characteristics of study participants are presented in
Table 2. Most studies utilised chronic cohorts (symp-
toms greater than three months), with the minimum
duration of symptoms ranging from six weeks to
12 months. Nine studies (47%) [29-31,33-35,38,40,42]
included participants with symptom durations of three
or more months. Clinical examination was the only
diagnostictool in13 studies
33,35,39,42,44,45,47], while ultrasonography was consid-
ered in six studies (33%) [25-27,31,40,45]. Two-thirds of
studies (67%) evaluated participants with only midpor-
tion symptoms, two studies (11%) [29,32] included parti-
cipantswithmixed diagnoses
midportion AT, while the location was not reported in
four studies [34,42,44,46].
[26,29,33,34,44-46] included participants with a mean
age of 40 years or less, and six
[25,26,27,32,35,42] utilised groups with at least 50 per-
cent females.
(68%) [25-27,29,31-
of insertionalor
Seven studies (37%)
studies(32%)
Outcome measures
Six different measures of pain and/or function were
reported across the 19 studies, with the evaluation of
pain-only being most common (79% of studies). Com-
bined measures of pain and function (47% of studies),
and function-only measures (21% of studies) were
also used. Visual analogue scales (VAS) (79% of studies)
[25-27,29-32,35,39,40,42,43,45,46] and the Victorian In-
stitute of Sport Assessment–Achilles (VISA-A) question-
naire (37% of studies) [25,26,33,39,43,44,47] were the
most frequently used tools. The American Orthopedic
Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot scale (AOFAS) (11%)
[31,42], Functional Index of the Leg and Lower Limb
(FILLA) (11%) [32,35], Pain Scoring System (5%) [34],
General Assessment of function (5%) [34] and Heel-raise
test (5%) [44] were also used. Reliability was reported for
three outcome measures (VAS [48], VISA-A [49] and
FILLA [50]) and only one measure had reported validity
(VISA-A [49]). Additional data was requested for six of
the 19 studies [33,34,38,42,46,47], with three authors
Figure 1 Flow chart of the process and rationale used in selecting studies for inclusion.
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 4 of 16

Page 5

replying to correspondence [33,38,47], and one provid-
ing sufficient data for further evaluation [47].
Evidence for physical therapies
Exercise modalities: Eccentric exercise was the most fre-
quently investigated intervention (17 out of the 19 stud-
ies).Ninestudies investigated
programsasa primary
[25,26,29,31,33,35,38,40,46]. A further eight studies used
eccentric exercise as a control or adjunct intervention
[27,30,34,39,42,43,45,47], and these will be considered
under their respective primary interventions. The meth-
odological quality of the nine studies ranged from four
to 11 out of 14 (mean±SD 7.6±5.3). Four of these stud-
ies [25,26,29,35] provided sufficient data for effect size
calculation (Figure 2). Due to differences in comparator
interventions, outcome measures and follow up times,
pooling of data from these studies was not conducted.
Only one study compared eccentric exercise to a wait-
and-see control [25], with findings of large significant
effects favouring a 12-week eccentric exercise program
eccentricexercise
interest intervention of
(SMD −1.26, 95% CI −0.65 to −1.87). Similar effects
were also seen when 12 weeks of eccentric exercise was
compared to cryotherapy (−1.67,–0.50 to −2.83) [29]. In
contrast, Petersen et al. [31] reported no significant dif-
ferences in outcome over one year between those treated
with 12 weeks of eccentric exercise and a heel brace
(p>0.05).
Three studies compared eccentric exercise to electro-
therapeutic modalities. Effect sizes for Chester et al. [35]
showed that eccentric exercise was not significantly dif-
ferent to therapeutic ultrasound at six weeks (0.63,–0.33
to 1.58) and 12 weeks (0.24,–0.69 to 1.17). Two studies
compared 12 weeks of eccentric exercise to three weeks
of shock wave therapy (SWT) [25,26], with pooled data
showing no significant differences at 16 weeks (VISA-
A:–0.55,–2.21 to 1.11).
A 12-week eccentric exercise program was compared
directly to concentric exercise by two studies [40,46]. Al-
though effect sizes could not be calculated for either
study, Niesen-Vertommen et al. [46] reported signifi-
cantly greater pain reduction in the eccentric exercise
Table 1 Quality ratings and inter-rater reliability using the Modified PEDro Scale of reviewed studies (N=23)
Criteria
123456789 10 1112 1314
Total
Costa 2005
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
12
Tumilty 2008
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
12
Rasmussen 2008
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
11
Rompe 2007
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
11
Rompe 2008
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
11
Rompe 2009
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
11
Silbernagel 2007
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
10
Stergioulas 2008
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
10
de Jonge 2010
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
9
Chapman-Jones 2002
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
8
Herrington 2007
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
8
Mafi 2001
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
8
Chester 2008
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
7
Roos 2004
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
7
Knobloch 2007
✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
7
Knobloch 2008
✓✓✓✓✓✓
6
McAleenan 2010
✓✓✓✓✓✓
6
Petersen 2007
✓✓✓✓✓✓
6
Silbernagel 2001
✓✓✓✓✓✓
6
Mayer 2007
✓✓✓✓
4
Niesen-Vertommen 1992
✓✓✓✓
4
Norregaard 2007
✓✓✓✓
4
Lowdon 1984
Inter-rater reliability (κ)
✓✓
2
0.621.001.000.731.001.00 0.900.881.000.621.001.00 1.001.00 0.94
Listing in descending order of quality rating.
Ticks indicate where a point was awarded for the criterion. Studies highlighted with bold and italic font were rated as having a high risk of bias.
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 5 of 16

Page 6

Table 2 Participant characteristics
StudyTypeDiagnosisSample sizeFemale
(%)
Age (years)
Mean (SD)
Pain duration (months),
mean, range
ECCENTRIC EXERCISE
Silbernagel 2001MCA: 22A: 5 (23)A: 47 (15) A: 9, 7, 4–96
B: 18B: 4 (22)B: 41 (10)B: 18,13, 6-192
Chester 2008 MCA: 8A: 4 (50)A: 59 (10)A: 23,13, NR
B: 8B: 1 (13)B: 48 (12)B: 14,10, NR
Mafi 2001MC & USA: 22A: 10 (45)A:48 (10)A: 18, NR, 3–120
B: 22B: 10 (45)B: 48 (8)B: 23, NR, 5-120
Rompe 2007MC & USA: 25A: 16 (64)A: 48 (10)A: 11, 8, NR
B: 25B: 16 (64)B: 46 (11)B: 9, 11, NR
Herrington 2007MCA: 13 NRA: 37 (9)A: 21,18, NR
B: 12B: 37 (7)B: 28,13, NR
Knobloch 2007AllCA: 15A: 7 (47)A: 33 (12)A: NR
B: 5B: 2 (40) B: 32 (10)B: NR
Niesen-Vertommen 1992 NR NR A: 8 A: 4 (50)A: 35 (NR) A: 4, NR, NR
B: 9B: 3 (33) B: 34 (NR)B: 4, NR, NR
Petersen 2007M C & USA: 37A: 14 (38)A: 42 (11) A: 7, 3, NR
B: 35B: 15 (43) B: 42 (11) B: 7, 3, NR
SHOCK WAVE THERAPY
Rasmussen 2008NRC A: 24A: 12 (50) A: 49 (9)A: NR
B: 24B: 16 (67) B: 46 (13)B: NR
Costa 2005AllC A: 22 A: 13 (59)A: 58 (11) A: 18,10, NR
B: 27B: 15 (56)B: 47 (13) B: 21, 21, NR
Rompe 2007M C & US A: 25A: 14 (56) A: 51 (10) A: 13, 7, NR
B: 25 B: 16 (64) B: 46 (11)B: 9, 11, NR
C: 25 C: 16 (64)C: 48 (10) C: 11, 8, NR
Rompe 2008IC & USA: 25 A: 16 (64) A: 40 (11)A: 26,11, NR
B: 25B: 14 (56)B: 39 (11) B: 25, 8, NR
Rompe 2009MC & USA: 34A: 18 (53) A: 53 (10)A: 16, 5, NR
B: 34B: 20 (59)B: 46 (10)B: 13, 7, NR
NIGHT SPLINT
de Jonge 2010MCA: 36A: 14 (39)A: 45 (9)A: 28, 46, NR
B: 34B: 12 (35)B: 44 (7)B: 34, 56, NR
McAleean 2010NRCA: 5A: 2 (40)A: 42 (6)A 11, 14, NR
B: 6B: 3 (50)B: 40 (9) B: 19, 12, NR
HEEL BRACE
Knobloch 2008MCA: 43A: 14 (33)A: 47 (11)A: NR
B: 54B: 20 (37)B: 48 (11)B: NR
Petersen 2007MC & USA: 28A: 11 (39)A: 43 (12)A: 7, 2, NR
B: 37 B: 14 (38)B: 42 (11) B: 7, 3, NR
LASER THERAPY
Stergioulas 2008MCA: 20A: 8 (40)A: 30 (5)A: 10, 3, NR
B: 20B: 7 (35)B: 29 (5)B: 9, 3, NR
Tumilty 2008MNR A: 10A: 3 (33)A: 41 (7.6)A: 4, NR, NR
B: 10B: 6 (60) B: 43 (8.5)B: 4, NR, NR
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 6 of 16

Page 7

group at four, eight and 12 weeks (p<0.05). Mafi et al.
[40] did not present between-group comparisons for
pain outcomes at 12 weeks. Silbernagel et al. [38] com-
pared two rehabilitation programs, both using eccentric
and concentric calf strengthening. Those randomised to
the experimental group received a program of higher
Achilles tendon loading that induced higher pain levels
than the control program, although they received greater
therapist monitoring than the control group. However,
no conclusions could be drawn regarding comparative
efficacy, due to the absence of between-group compari-
sons of pain, and effect estimates could not be calculated
due to insufficient data.
Herrington and McCulloch [33] assessed the benefit of
adding eccentric exercise to a multimodal program of
deep friction massage, ultrasound and calf stretching.
Pain and function outcomes assessed using the VISA-A
questionnaire suggest that the eccentric exercise group
experienced greater improvements after 12 weeks than
the control group (p=0.01); however, effect estimates
could not be calculated due to insufficient data.
Silbernagel et al. [39] evaluated the effect of continued
tendon loading while undergoing a rehabilitation pro-
gram of eccentric exercises for AT. One group continued
to participate in tendon loading activities (e.g. running or
jumping activities) while the other limited this type
of activity, and groups were followed over one year.
Evaluation of pain and function outcomes found no
significant effects for either program at six weeks
(−0.32, -0.88 to 0.25), 12 weeks (−0.17,–0.73 to 0.39),
Table 2 Participant characteristics (Continued)
MICROCURRENT THERAPY
Chapman-Jones 2002 NRCA: 24A: 6 (25)A: 39 (10.4) A: NR
B: 24B: 7 (29)B: 36 (7.8)B: NR
CONTINUED TENDON LOADING
Silbernagel 2007MCA: 26A: 7 (37) A: 44 (8.8)A: 48, 85, 3–360
B: 25 B: 11 (58) B: 48 (6.8) B: 24, 41, 3-168
All=includes both I & M; C=clinical; I=insertional; M=midportion; NA=not applicable; NR=not reported; US=ultrasound.
Figure 2 Standardised mean differences for outcomes of pain ± function following intervention with exercise modalities. EE=eccentric
exercise; SWT=shock wave therapy. * denotes use of conservative therapy in addition to presented modality.
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 7 of 16

Page 8

Table 3 Physical therapies for Achilles tendinopathy
StudyIntervention(s) Sample size Intervention
duration (wk)
Comparison and
outcome measure
SMD (95% CI) Study conclusions
(where SMD unable to
be calculated)
ECCENTRIC EXERCISE
Mafi 2001A: Eccentric exerciseA: 2212 A vs B 12wk: ID Between groups comparisons of pain not presented;
Significant within-group improvement in pain VAS
for both eccentric and concentric exercise in those
who were satisfied with treatment (p<0.05)
B: Concentric exerciseB: 22 VASa
Niesen-Vertommen 1992A: Eccentric exerciseA: 812 A vs B 4wk: ID Eccentric exercise had a greater reduction of pain
(p<0.01)
B: Concentric exercise B: 9VASo8wk: ID
12wk: ID
Rompe 2007A: Eccentric exercise A: 25 12 A vs B 16wk:–1.26
(–1.87:–0.65)
B: Wait and see approachB: 25 VISA-A
Knobloch 2007A: Eccentric exercise A: 15 12A vs B 12wk: -1.67
(−2.83: -0.50)
B: CryotherapyB: 5 VASo
Petersen 2007 A: Eccentric exerciseA: 37 12 A vs B6wk: ID No difference between groups (p<0.05)
B: Heel brace B: 35 VASa 12wk: ID
54wk: ID
Rompe 2008 A: Shock wave therapyA: 25 A: 3B vs A 16wk: -1.40
(−0.74: -2.06)
B: Eccentric exerciseB: 25B: 12 VISA-A
Chester 2008 A: Eccentric exercise A: 8A: 12
B: ≤6
A vs B6wk: 0.63
(−0.33: 1.58)
B: Ultrasound B: 8VASs
12wk: 0.24
(−0.69: 1.17)
Silbernagel 2001 A: Rehabilitation programme
including single leg eccentric
loading
A: 2212 A vs B 6wk: IDEccentric loading had better strength and pain
outcomes (p<0.05)
B: 18VASj 12wk: ID
B: Rehabilitation programme26wk: ID
52wk: ID
Herrington 2007A: Eccentric exercise+deep
friction massage+ultrasound+
calf stretches
A: 13
B: 12
12 A vs B4wk: ID Eccentric exercise produced superior pain and
function outcomes (p=0.01)
8wk: ID VISA-A
12wk: ID
B: Deep friction massage+
ultrasound+calf stretches
SHOCK WAVE THERAPY
Costa 2005A: Shock wave therapy A: 2212 A vs B12wk: -0.44
(−1.01: 0.13)
B: Sham shock wave therapyB: 27
52 wk: IDVASw
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
Page 8 of 16
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15

Page 9

Table 3 Physical therapies for Achilles tendinopathy (Continued)
Rompe 2007A: Shock wave therapy A: 25A: 3 A vs B 16wk: -1.03
(−1.62:-0.44)
B: Wait and see approachB: 25 B: 12 VISA-A
C: 25 C: 12C: Eccentric exercise A vs C
VISA-A
16 wk: 0.29
(−0.27: 0.85)
Rompe 2008 A: Shock wave therapy A: 25A: 3A vs B16wk: -1.40
(−2.03: -0.78)
B: Eccentric exercise B: 25 B: 12 VISA-A
Rompe 2009A: Shock wave therapy+
eccentric exercise
A: 34 A: 12A vs B16wk: -0.76
(−1.28: -0.24)
B: 34B: 12 VISA-A
B: Eccentric exercise
Rasmussen 2008A: Shock wave therapy+
conservative therapy
A: 244 A vs B 4wk: -0.52
(−1.10: 0.06)
B: 24 AOFAS
B: Sham shock wave
therapy+conservative therapy
8wk: ID
12wk: ID
LASER THERAPY
Stergioulas 2008A: Laser therapy+eccentric exercise A: 208 A vs B4wk: -1.07
(−1.65: -0.49)
B: 20 VASaB: Placebo laser therapy+
eccentric exercise8wk: -1.14
(−1.82: -0.47)
12wk: -0.78
(−1.42: -0.13)
Tumilty 2008A: Laser therapy+eccentric exercise A: 1012 A vs B4wk: 0.53
(−0.36: 1.43)
B: 10 VASmB: Placebo laser therapy+
eccentric exercise 12wk: -0.25
(−1.13: 0.64)
MICROCURRENT THERAPY
Chapman-Jones 2002A: Microcurrent therapy+
eccentric exercise
B: Eccentric exercise11
A: 2412 A vs B 12wk: IDMicrocurrent therapy produced superior pain,
stiffness and function outcomes (p<0.001)
B: 24 VASa 26wk: ID
52wk: ID
CONTINUED TENDON LOADING
Silbernagel 2007 A: Rehabilitation programme+
continued tendon loading activity
A: 2612- 26 A vs B 6wk: -0.32
(−0.88: 0.25)
B: 25 VISA-A-S
B: Rehabilitation programme+
no tendon loading activity
(running or jumping)
12wk: -0.17
(−0.73: 0.39)
26wk: -0.12
(−0.68: 0.44)
52wk: -0.55
(−1.11: 0.02)
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
Page 9 of 16
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15

Page 10

Table 3 Physical therapies for Achilles tendinopathy (Continued)
NIGHT SPLINT
de Jonge 2010 A: Night splint+eccentric exerciseA: 3612 A vs B4wk: -0.12
(−0.61: 0.37)
B: 34VISA-AB: Eccentric exercise
12wk: 0.07
(−0.43: 0.56)
52wk: -0.10
(−0.60: 0.40)
McAleenan 2010 A: Night splint+eccentric exerciseA: 5 12 A vs B
VISA-A
12wk: -1.09
(−2.41: 0.22)
B: 6B: Eccentric exercise
HEEL BRACE
Knobloch 2008A: Heel brace+eccentric exercise A: 43 12A vs B12wk: -0.29
(−0.70: 0.12)
B: 54VASoB: Eccentric exercise
Petersen 2007A: Heel brace+eccentric exerciseA: 28 12A vs B 6wk: IDNo difference between groups (p<0.05)
B: 37 VASw12wk: IDB: Eccentric exercise
54wk: ID
CI=confidence interval; ID=insufficient data; NR=not reported; PES=Pain Experience Index; SD=standard deviation; SMD=standard mean difference; wk=week; VAS=visual analogue scale; VISA-A=Victorian
Institute of Sports Assessment – Achilles; VISA-A-S Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment – Achilles Swedish; VASa=pain during activity; VASj=pain during jumping; VASm=pain in the morning; VASo=pain overall;
VASs=pain after sport & recreation; VASw=pain during walking.
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
Page 10 of 16
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15

Page 11

26 weeks (−0.12,–0.68 to 0.44) or one year (−0.55,–1.11 to
0.02) (Figure 2).
Electrophysical therapies: Five studies [25-27,32,42]
evaluated the efficacy of SWT on AT (Table 3), with
a mean methodological quality of 11.2±0.4 (range 11 to
12). Sufficient data for effect size calculations was avail-
able for all studies (Figure 3).
Evidence from meta-analysis of data from two studies
comparing SWT to eccentric exercise [25,26] found no
significant effects for outcomes of pain and function
(VISA-A:–0.55,–2.21 to 1.11) at 16 weeks. One of these
studies specified that they evaluated individuals with
insertional AT [26], while the other studied individuals
with midportion AT [25]. A further study by Rompe and
colleagues [27] examined the effects of SWT when
added to eccentric exercise, with effect sizes showing
moderate significant effects favouring combined SWT
and eccentric exercise over eccentric exercise alone after
16 weeks (–0.76,–1.28 to–0.24).
The 2007 study by Rompe et al. [25] also included a
wait-and-see group, allowing comparisons to be made
between SWT and a no-treatment control. Moderate sig-
nificant effects were found that favour SWT at 16 weeks
(−1.03,–1.62 to–0.44). Two studies [32,42] evaluated
SWTusing double-blind,
designs, with effect sizes indicating similar outcomes.
Costa et al. [32] compared SWT directly to application
of sham SWT over 12 weeks. There were no significant
pain effects favouring either SWT or sham at 12-week
follow up (−0.44,–1.01 to 0.13). Although participants
were followed up at 12 months, insufficient data was
available to calculate effect sizes. Rasmussen et al. [42]
investigated differences between SWT and sham SWT as
an addition to a conservative therapy program that
placebo-controlled study
Figure 3 Standardised mean differences for outcomes of pain ± function following electrophysical therapies. SWT=shock wave therapy;
EE=eccentric exercise. * denotes use of rehabilitation program in addition to presented modality.
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 11 of 16

Page 12

included eccentric exercise. After four weeks of inter-
vention, no significant effects were found for either
group (−0.52,–1.1 to 0.06). There was insufficient data
to evaluate longer follow up periods.
Evidence from meta-analysis of data from two studies
of higher methodological quality (10 and 12 out of 14)
[43,45] does not support the use of laser therapy (LT) in
conjunction with eccentric exercise. Both studies com-
pared LT with sham LT, used in conjunction with eccen-
tric exercise, and evaluated pain outcomes on a VAS
over 12 weeks. Pooled data showed no significant effects
at 4 weeks (−0.31,–1.88 to 1.26), but significant effects
favouring LT were found at 12 weeks (−0.59,–1.11 to
−0.07) (Figure 3).
Microcurrent therapy was investigated as an interven-
tion for AT by one study [34] with a methodological
quality rating of 8 out of 14. Chapman-Jones and Hill
[34] compared a combined intervention of microcurrent
therapy and eccentric exercise to eccentric exercise
alone. While effect estimates were unable to be calcu-
lated, the authors reported significantly greater improve-
ments in pain after 12, 26 and 52 weeks in favour of
those receiving microcurrent therapy (p<0.001).
Braces and splints: Meta-analysis was conducted using
data from two studies that evaluated the addition of a
night splint to an eccentric exercise program (PEDro
scores 9 [47] and 6 [44] out of 14). Pooling of data for
pain and function outcomes (VISA-A) showed no sig-
nificant effects at 12 weeks (−0.35,–1.44 to 0.74).
Two studies investigated the efficacy of a heel brace as
an adjunct to eccentric exercise [30,31]. Both studies
had methodological quality ratings of 6 out of 14 and,
due to insufficient data provided by Petersen et al. [31],
pooling of data was unable to be performed. Effect size
calculations for Knobloch et al. [29] showed no signifi-
cant effects for the addition of a heel brace to an eccen-
tric exercise program at 12 weeks (−0.29,–0.70 to 0.12)
(Figure 4). Petersen and colleagues [31] also reported
no significant between-group differences over a one-year
period.
Discussion
Based on the available evidence, and limited opportun-
ities for data pooling, it appears that a number of phys-
ical therapies may be effective in improving pain and
function in those with AT. Effect sizes from multiple in-
dividual RCTs show eccentric exercise to be efficacious.
Evidence from a meta-analysis indicates that SWT and
eccentric exercise have similar effects. Pooled data also
show LT to be more effective than sham when used in
Figure 4 Standardised mean differences for outcomes of pain with braces and splints. EE=eccentric exercise.
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 12 of 16

Page 13

conjunction
addition of night splints to eccentric exercise does not
provide any additional benefit. Microcurrent therapy
may also be a worthwhile intervention for this condition,
based on a single RCT. No evidence was found to sup-
port the use of heel braces as an adjunct to eccentric
exercise.
One of the most interesting findings of this systematic
review is that all but one of the included studies utilised
an eccentric exercise program as their primary interven-
tion, comparator intervention, or as a component of a
multimodal approach. This, considered in conjunction
with favourable findings regarding efficacy, suggests that
eccentric exercise should be an integral component of
AT management. The majority of studies that evaluated
eccentric exercise as the primary intervention of interest
utilised programs similar to the approach taken by
Alfredson and colleagues [51]. This involves three sets of
15 repetitions of eccentric heel-drops twice daily for
12 weeks. An important component of Alfredson’s ori-
ginal program was that participants were encouraged to
experience Achilles tendon pain during the exercise, an
approach adopted by most studies (89%) [25-27,29-
31,33,35,38-40,43-45,47]. This may influence participant
compliance with the exercise program. However, partici-
pant adherence to eccentric exercise was monitored by
few included studies, making it difficult to determine its
role in the outcomes. The only studies to monitor com-
pliance reported results ranging from 72 to 100%
[45,47]. Methods such as information manuals, practical
demonstrations or supervision were implemented by
most studies to improve compliance. However, the con-
sistent use of documentation, such as diaries, to measure
compliance and determine its contribution to participant
outcomes should be a feature of future studies.
Eccentric loading is currently recommended as the
preferred exercise for tendinopathies, over other types of
exercise such as concentric loading. However, differences
in efficacy and therapeutic mechanisms between eccen-
tric and other exercise are yet to be established. Rees
and colleagues [52] compared eccentric and concentric
loading of the Achilles tendon and found no differences
in peak tendon force or length changes. However, high
frequency oscillations were found to occur more com-
monly during eccentric than concentric loading. This
difference has been proposed to achieve a greater thera-
peutic benefit by providing more stimulus for tendon re-
modelling [52]. This requires further investigation in
order to establish a clearer understanding of the differ-
ences between eccentric and concentric tendon loading,
and their relative efficacies for Achilles and other
tendinopathies.
Outcomes of studies that compared eccentric exercise
to no treatment or passive treatments provide important
with eccentric exercise,howeverthe
information regarding ideal management of AT. Findings
of large significant effects favouring eccentric exercise
over a wait-and-see approach [25] and cryotherapy [29]
indicates that managing the condition in its chronic
form by resting or using a cryotherapy program is in-
appropriate. This is consistent with beliefs that physical
therapies such as eccentric exercise are needed to stimu-
late change within the tendon. Furthermore, the con-
tinuation of monitored tendon loading activities while
undertaking an exercise rehabilitation program, which
includes eccentric exercise, may provide no harm to
patients. While findings of one study by Silbernagel and
colleagues [39] supports this approach, further studies
are needed to determine indications for continued ten-
don loading and its suitability for use with other
interventions.
Overall findings regarding SWT need to be interpreted
with caution. Although SWT appears more efficacious
than no treatment [25], findings of two studies suggest
that SWT is no more effective than a sham intervention
[32,42], suggesting a placebo effect associated with pain
and function outcomes. Furthermore, pooled study data
reveals that SWT has a similar effect to eccentric exer-
cise. It is only when SWT is used in conjunction with
eccentric exercise that moderate effect sizes for pain and
function are observed [27], suggesting that utilising
SWT in combination with eccentric exercise is likely to
produce superior patient outcomes than eccentric exer-
cise or SWT alone. In comparison, LT was found to be
an effective addition to eccentric exercise when com-
pared to a sham intervention at 12 weeks, suggesting
that it may be preferable to utilise LT rather than SWT
as an adjunct to eccentric exercise. Interestingly, the two
studies that compared LT to a sham intervention
showed contrasting effect sizes at initial follow up (four
weeks). This may be explained by methodological differ-
ences, where Tumilty and colleagues [43] utilised a
shorter duration of treatment and application with lower
power density and smaller spot size compared to
Stergioulas et al. [43,45]. This reinforces the need for
consensus regarding ideal LT application for AT, with
particular consideration given to frequency, duration
and dosage, and consistency when developing future LT
protocols for clinical and research use.
There are important practical considerations when
selecting SWT or LT as interventions for AT. Consider-
ing the need for access to specialised equipment as well
as practitioner training, they may not represent an inter-
vention with as widespread application and accessibility
as eccentric exercise. However, it may be ideal for those
who are unable or decline to use eccentric exercise. A
further consideration is the discomfort that has previ-
ously been associated with SWT treatment [53]. Among
the five studies using SWT, analgesia was not used in
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 13 of 16

Page 14

the preparation and the four (out of five) studies that
monitored side effects did not report any significant ad-
verse events, including pain. As such, although practi-
tioners should always be aware of patient comfort
during any treatment, it appears that SWT may not be
pain provocative in all patients.
This systematic review identified no RCTs that have
investigated night splints, heel braces, LT, or microcur-
rent therapy without eccentric exercise. It is therefore
difficult to ascertain whether improvements in pain and
function can be attributed to the intervention or the ec-
centric exercise program, which has established efficacy
against a no-treatment control. As such, future studies
are required to test these interventions in isolation in
order to establish their efficacy as sole interventions for
AT. Furthermore, other interventions that were not
investigated by included studies, such as acupuncture,
trigger point therapy, massage and foot orthoses may
also be effective in the management of AT, and require
investigation in RCTs.
While we did not restrict inclusion based on AT loca-
tion, the majority of included studies that reported AT
location utilised midportion tendinopathies only, fol-
lowed by mixed midportion and insertional cohorts.
Only one study investigated isolated insertional AT and
the effects of SWT [26]. This is an important consider-
ation for clinical application of these findings given that
the location of symptoms may reflect different entities
[54,55]. The insertion of the tendon has a tendency
to develop cartilage-like or atrophic changes on the
stress-shielded side of the enthesis as a result of reduced
tensile load [56] and may explain why people with sed-
entary lifestyles develop insertional pathology. Thus,
future studies should classify participants and report
outcomes based on AT site to further increase know-
ledge regarding potential differences in treatment effi-
cacy between midportion and insertional AT.
Age may also be important when selecting an appro-
priate intervention for AT. To our knowledge, the effect
of age on outcomes of traditional interventions for AT
has not been evaluated. The aging process results in col-
lagen changes that may place humans at a higher risk of
developing tendinopathies [57]. Weight bearing exercise
has been shown to enhance the mechanical properties of
tendons by increasing collagen synthesis [58]. However,
the same process that may increase the risk of develop-
ing AT may also diminish the ability of the tendon to re-
spond to exercise therapies. The studies that utilised
participants with a mean age equal or less than 35 years
all showed favourable effects for eccentric exercise when
evaluating pain and/or function outcomes [29,46]. In
comparison, only two of the five studies that utilised
participants aged greater than 35 years (mean) favoured
the eccentric exercise [25,38]. While it is important to
consider that the control interventions were not consist-
ent between studies, this does provide preliminary infor-
mation to be considered for future studies.
The procedures adopted by this systematic review, in-
cluding methodological quality ratings and data extrac-
tion, identified a number of features that should be
addressed in future RCTs. Firstly, it is clear that more
randomised studies that adhere to recommendations of
the CONSORT statement [59] utilising appropriate con-
trol groups and blinding of participants and assessors
whenever possibleare required regarding
therapies for AT. Secondly, consistent use of valid
and reliable disease-specific outcome measures such as
the VISA-A questionnaire [49] will facilitate com-
parisons between different studies, as well as further
meta-analyses.
While this is the first systematic review on physical
therapies for AT to utilise methodological quality ratings
and conduct meta-analyses, there are limitations that
must be acknowledged. Only English language studies
were included, meaning that potentially relevant papers
may have been excluded based on publication language.
While three meta-analyses were performed, it was not
possible to pool more than two studies per analysis. To
achieve higher statistical power, it is necessary to pool a
larger number of studies, which may be achieved by fu-
ture systematic reviews on this topic [60]. Reviewers
who rated studies on the modified PEDro scale were not
blinded to author, institution and journal, and only one
reviewer extracted study data, which may have intro-
duced biases. Furthermore, the inclusion of studies with
mixed locations of tendon pathology prevents this re-
view from making clearer distinctions between the evi-
dence for each entity, and, where possible, should be a
consideration for future systematic reviews.
physical
Conclusions
This is the first systematic review of physical therapies
for AT to perform meta-analyses and evaluate the meth-
odological quality of included studies. Findings from in-
dividual RCTs support the use of eccentric exercise in
the management of AT, with pooled data suggesting
additional benefits using LT as an adjunct intervention,
and similar outcomes when SWT is utilised as an alter-
native to eccentric exercise. There is emerging evidence
supporting the use of microcurrent therapy in conjunc-
tion with eccentric exercises. It appears that continued
tendon loading does not adversely affect pain and func-
tion outcomes. Sufficient evidence is lacking to enable
recommendation of night splints and heel braces as a
management option. Further high quality RCTs using
disease specific outcome measures, consistent treatment
protocols and reporting that adheres to the recommen-
dations of the CONSORT statement are needed to
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 14 of 16

Page 15

clarify the clinical pathways for managing midportion
and insertional AT.
Additional files
Additional file 1: Systematic review search strategy.
Additional file 2: Modified PEDro scale for rating methodological
quality.
Abbreviations
AB: Andrea Bialocerkowski; AMI: Australian Medical Index; AOFAS: The
American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society hindfoot scale; AT: Achilles
tendinopathy; AUSPORT: Australian Sport Database; CI: Confidence interval;
CINAHL: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature;
CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; EMBASE: Excerpta
Medica Database; FILLA: Functional Index of the Leg and Lower Limb;
KC: Kay Crossley; LT: Laser therapy; Medline: Medical Literature Analysis and
Retrieval System; PEDro: Physiotherapy Evidence Database; PRISMA: Preferred
Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses; RCTs: Randomised
controlled trials; SD: Standard deviation; SSL: Samuel Sussmilch-Leitch;
SMD: Standardised mean differences; SW: Stuart Warden; SWT: Shock wave
therapy; VAS: Visual analogue scales; VISA-A: Victorian Institute of Sport
Assessment-Achilles; κ: Kappa.
Competing interests
Authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
KC conceived of the review, participated in its design and coordination,
screened titles, abstracts and full text articles for eligibility and drafted the
manuscript. SSL participated in its design, performed the search strategy,
appraised the methodological quality of studies, extracted study data and
drafted the manuscript. AB participated in its design, appraised the
methodological quality and contributed to the manuscript. SW screened
titles, abstracts and full text articles for eligibility and contributed to the
manuscript. NC participated in its design and drafted the manuscript. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Author details
1Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC,
Australia.2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Melbourne School of
Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.3Department
of Physiotherapy, University of Western Sydney, School of Biomedical and
Health Sciences, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia.4Department of Physical
Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Indiana University,
Indianapolis, USA.5School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of
Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Received: 21 December 2011 Accepted: 20 April 2012
Published: 2 July 2012
References
1. Holmes GB, Lin J: Etiologic factors associated with symptomatic achilles
tendinopathy. Foot Ankle Int 2006, 27:952–959.
2.Kujala UM, Sarna S, Kaprio J: Cumulative incidence of achilles tendon
rupture and tendinopathy in male former elite athletes. Clin J Sport Med
2005, 15:133–135.
3.Del Buono A, Battery L, Denaro V, Maccauro G, Maffulli N: Tendinopathy
and inflammation: some truths. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 2011,
24:45–50.
4.Battery L, Maffulli N: Inflammation in overuse tendon injuries. Sports Med
Arthrosc 2011, 19:213–217.
5.Khan KM, Cook JL, Bonar F, Harcourt P, Astrom M: Histopathology of
common tendinopathies. Update and implications for clinical
management. Sports Med 1999, 27:393–408.
6. Khan KM, Bonar F, Desmond PM, Cook JL, Young DA, Visentini PJ,
Fehrmann MW, Kiss ZS, O’Brien PA, Harcourt PR, et al: Patellar tendinosis
(jumper’s knee): findings at histopathologic examination, US, and MR
imaging. Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group. Radiology
1996, 200:821–827.
Maffulli N, Khan KM, Puddu G: Overuse tendon conditions: time to change
a confusing terminology. Arthroscopy 1998, 14:840–843.
Paavola M, Kannus P, Paakkala T, Pasanen M, Jarvinen M: Long-term
prognosis of patients with achilles tendinopathy. An observational
8-year follow-up study. Am J Sports Med 2000, 28:634–642.
Kannus P, Jozsa L: Histopathological changes preceding spontaneous
rupture of a tendon. A controlled study of 891 patients. J Bone Joint Surg
Am 1991, 73:1507–1525.
Alfredson H, Cook J: A treatment algorithm for managing Achilles
tendinopathy: new treatment options. Br J Sports Med 2007,
41:211–216.
Kearney R, Costa ML: Insertional achilles tendinopathy management: a
systematic review. Foot Ankle Int 2010, 31:689–694.
Maffulli N, Longo UG, Denaro V: Novel approaches for the management
of tendinopathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010, 92:2604–2613.
McLauchlan GJ, Handoll HH: Interventions for treating acute and chronic
Achilles tendinitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001, 2:CD000232.
Magnussen RA, Dunn WR, Thomson AB: Nonoperative treatment of
midportion Achilles tendinopathy: a systematic review. Clin J Sport Med
2009, 19:54–64.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke
M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D: The PRISMA statement for reporting
systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health
care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009,
151:W65–W94.
NHMRC: How to review the evidence: systematic identification and review of
the scientific literature. Canberra: Biotext; 1999.
Physiotherapy Evidence Database. http://www.pedro.org.au/english/tutorial/
pedro-scale-training-program/.
Bisset L, Paungmali A, Vicenzino B, Beller E: A systematic review and meta-
analysis of clinical trials on physical interventions for lateral
epicondylalgia. Br J Sports Med 2005, 39:411–422. discussion 411–422.
Collins N, Bisset L, McPoil T, Vicenzino B: Foot orthoses in lower limb
overuse conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Int
2007, 28:396–412.
Collins NJ, Bisset LM, Crossley KM, Vicenzino B: Efficacy of nonsurgical
interventions for anterior knee pain: systematic review and meta-
analysis of randomized trials. Sports Med 2012, 42:31–49.
Higgins J, Green S: In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions Version 502 (updated September 2009), The Cochrane
Collaboration. 2009.
A new view of statistics. http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/.
Review Manager (RevMan) [computer programme]. Version 42 for Windows
editionth edition. City: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2003.
Higgins PTJ, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions. West Sussex: The Cochrance Collaboration & John Wiley &
Sons Ltd; 2008.
Rompe JD, Nafe B, Furia JP, Maffulli N: Eccentric loading, shock-wave
treatment, or a wait-and-see policy for tendinopathy of the main body
of tendo Achillis: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2007,
35:374–383.
Rompe JD, Furia J, Maffulli N: Eccentric loading compared with shock
wave treatment for chronic insertional Achilles tendinopathy. a
randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008, 90:52–61.
Rompe JD, Furia J, Maffulli N: Eccentric loading versus eccentric loading
plus shock-wave treatment for midportion achilles tendinopathy: a
randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2009, 37:463–470.
Mayer F, Hirschmuller A, Muller S, Schuberth M, Baur H: Effects of short-
term treatment strategies over 4 weeks in Achilles tendinopathy. Br J
Sports Med 2007, 41:e6.
Knobloch K, Kraemer R, Jagodzinkski M, Zeichen J, Meller R, Vogt P:
Eccentric training decreases paratendon capillary blood flow and
preserves paratendon oxygen saturation in chronic Achilles
tendinopathy. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007, 37:269–276.
Knobloch K, Schreibmueller L, Longo UG, Vogt PM: Eccentric exercises for
the management of tendinopathy of the main body of the Achilles
tendon with or without the AirHeel Brace. A randomized controlled trial.
A: effects on pain and microcirculation. Disabil Rehabil 2008,
30:1685–1691.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Sussmilch-Leitch et al. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 2012, 5:15
http://www.jfootankleres.com/content/5/1/15
Page 15 of 16