Association of psychological variables and outcome in tendinopathy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fear, anxiety, depression, distress and catastrophisation are all factors known to affect pain and disability levels. To date, the association of such psychological factors has yet to be established in tendinopathy. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to determine if psychological variables are associated with tendinopathy and whether any such variables may be associated with pain and disability outcomes in conservative management of tendinopathy. DESIGN: A systematic review was undertaken and included studies were appraised for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Owing to heterogeneity of studies, a qualitative synthesis was undertaken. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search of MEDLINE, CiNAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, EMBASE and PsycARTICLES was undertaken from their inception to April 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Any study design that incorporated psychological measures and clinical outcomes using participants with tendinopathy. RESULTS: Ten articles describing nine studies and 1108 participants were included. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the association of anxiety, depression and lateral epicondylalgia (LE). Strong evidence suggests LE is not associated with kinesiophobia. Moderate evidence links catastrophisation and distress with LE. Moderate evidence suggests distress is not associated with rotator cuff tendinopathy, but kinesiophobia and catastrophisation are. Limited evidence suggests patellar tendinopathy is not associated with anxiety or depression and kinesiophobia may be linked with suboptimal outcomes in Achilles tendinopathy. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS: Tendinopathy requires an individualised approach to management. Clinicians should consider using validated screening tools for the presence of psychological variables as a part of their holistic management.
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 | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".