Foot and Ankle Tendoscopy: Evidence‐Based Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of the current literature on tendoscopy of the foot and ankle and assign an evidence-based grade of recommendation for or against intervention. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature was performed on May 26, 2013, using the PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Studies focusing on the use of foot and ankle tendoscopy were isolated, and these articles were then reviewed and assigned a Level of Evidence (I through V). The literature was then analyzed, and a grade of recommendation was assigned for tendoscopy of the tendons of the foot and ankle on which the procedure is generally performed. RESULTS: There is weak evidence (grade Cf) to support the use of tendoscopy on the Achilles, flexor hallucis longus, and peroneal tendons. Insufficient evidence (grade I) exists to assign a grade of recommendation for tendoscopy of the tibialis posterior, tibialis anterior, flexor digitorum longus, extensor hallucis longus, and extensor digitorum longus. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive review of the literature on foot and ankle tendoscopy has shown predominantly Level IV and V studies, with just 1 Level II study. On the basis of the current literature available, there is poor evidence (grade Cf) in support of Achilles, flexor hallucis longus, and peroneal tendoscopy for the common indications. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation (grade I) for or against tendoscopy of the tibialis posterior, tibialis anterior, flexor digitorum longus, extensor hallucis longus, and extensor digitorum longus. Although current literature suggests that tendoscopy is a safe and effective procedure, original scientific articles of higher levels of evidence are needed before a stronger recommendation can be assigned. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II, IV, and V studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".