MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097257189 · doi:10.2196/19111

Effect of Pain Education and Exercise on Pain and Function in Chronic Achilles Tendinopathy: Protocol for a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial

2020· article· en· W3097257189 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrew A. Post, Ebonie Rio, Kathleen A. Sluka, G. Lorimer Moseley, Emine O. Bayman, Mederic M. Hall, César de César Netto, Jason M. Wilken, Jessica Danielson, Ruth L. Chimenti

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelPhysical therapyMedicineRandomized controlled trialTendinopathyPsychosocialChronic painRehabilitationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTendonSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Achilles tendinopathy (AT) rehabilitation traditionally includes progressive tendon loading exercises. Recent evidence suggests a biopsychosocial approach that incorporates patient education on psychosocial factors and mechanisms of pain can reduce pain and disability in individuals with chronic pain. This is yet to be examined in individuals with AT. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the effects on movement-evoked pain and self-reported function of pain education as part of a biopsychosocial approach with pathoanatomical education for people with AT when combined with a progressive tendon loading exercise program. METHODS: A single-site, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial will be conducted in a university-based hospital in a laboratory setting and/or by telehealth. A total of 66 participants with chronic (>3 months) midportion or insertional AT will be randomized for the Tendinopathy Education of the Achilles (TEAch) study. All participants will complete progressive Achilles tendon loading exercises over 12 weeks and will be encouraged to continue with self-selected exercises as tolerated. All participants will complete 6-7 one-to-one sessions with a physical therapist to progress exercises in a standardized manner over 8 weeks. During the last 4 weeks of the intervention, participants will be encouraged to maintain their home exercise program. Participants will be randomized to 1 of 2 types of education (pain education or pathoanatomic), in addition to exercise. Pain education will focus on the biological and psychological mechanisms of pain within a biopsychosocial framing of AT. Pathoanatomic education will focus on biological processes within a more traditional biomedical framework of AT. Evaluation sessions will be completed at baseline and 8-week follow-up, and self-reported outcome measures will be completed at the 12-week follow-up. Both groups will complete progressive Achilles loading exercises in 4 phases throughout the 12 weeks and will be encouraged to continue with self-selected exercises as tolerated. Primary outcomes are movement-evoked pain during heel raises and self-reported function (patient-reported outcome measure information system-Physical Function). Secondary outcomes assess central nervous system nociceptive processing, psychological factors, motor function, and feasibility. RESULTS: Institutional review board approval was obtained on April 15, 2019, and study funding began in July 2019. As of March 2020, we randomized 23 out of 66 participants. In September 2020, we screened 267 individuals, consented 68 participants, and randomized 51 participants. We anticipate completing the primary data analysis by March 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The TEAch study will evaluate the utility of pain education for those with AT and the effects of improved patient knowledge on pain, physical function, and clinical outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/19111.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.401 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207