↓ Skip to main content

Is heavy eccentric calf training superior to wait-and-see, sham rehabilitation, traditional physiotherapy and other exercise interventions for pain and function in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy?

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 Mendeley
Title
Is heavy eccentric calf training superior to wait-and-see, sham rehabilitation, traditional physiotherapy and other exercise interventions for pain and function in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy?
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0725-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myles Murphy, Mervyn Travers, William Gibson

Abstract

Mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy (AT) is prevalent amongst athletic and non-athletic populations with pain, stiffness and impaired function typically reported. While different management options exist, loading protocols remain the best available intervention and have been shown to be effective in the management of AT. Trials investigating loading in AT have used a variety of different protocols, and recent narrative reviews suggest that no protocol is superior to another when comparing outcomes in pain and function. However, there has been no systematic review or meta-analysis completed to determine this. Furthermore, the narrative review did not consider wait-and-see or sham interventions, thus a systematic review and met-analysis which includes wait-and-see or sham interventions is warranted. A systematic review and meta-analyses will be conducted as per the PRISMA guidelines. The databases PUBMED, CINAHL (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) will be searched for articles published from inception to 31 December 2017. Our search focuses on studies examining the improvement of pain and function when completing a loading program for mid-portion AT. Only randomised/ quasi-randomised trials will be included while case reports and case series will be excluded. The primary outcome assessing pain and function will be the Victorian Institute Sports Assessment - Achilles (VISA-A). Two reviewers will screen articles, extract data and assess the risk of bias independently with a third reviewer resolving any disagreements between the two reviewers. A meta-analysis will then be performed on the data (if appropriate) to determine if the traditional heavy load calf training protocol described by Alfredson is superior to wait-and-see, sham intervention, traditional physiotherapy, and other forms of exercise rehabilitation. This systematic review and meta-analysis will allow us to investigate if there are difference in pain and function when comparing wait-and-see, sham interventions, traditional physiotherapy and different exercise interventions to the traditional heavy eccentric calf training protocol for mid-portion Achilles tendon pain. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084493 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 255 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 16%
Student > Master 34 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Student > Postgraduate 12 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 4%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 101 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 67 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 16%
Sports and Recreations 24 9%
Engineering 4 2%
Social Sciences 3 1%
Other 7 3%
Unknown 109 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2020.
All research outputs
#3,207,609
of 24,312,464 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#596
of 2,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,425
of 331,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#17
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,312,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.