Kinesiophobia contributes to worse functional and patient‐reported outcome measures in Achilles tendinopathy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of kinesiophobia or fear of reinjury on patient-reported outcome measures and physical performance measures in patients with chronic Achilles tendinopathy (AT). METHODS: Three databases were systematically screened for studies from inception to May 22nd, 2023 for literature investigating the impact of kinesiophobia on PROMs or physical performance metrics in AT. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on demographics, pain, level of activity, self-reported injury severity, quality of life, single-leg hop performance, and heel-raise performance were recorded. Data was presented primarily in a narrative summary fashion. The MINORS score was used for all studies to perform a quality assessment of included studies. RESULTS: Six studies comprising 705 patients were included in this review. Variations of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-11 or TSK-17) were used in all studies. TSK scores were strongly correlated with the Pain Catastrophizing Score (PCS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and were correlated with decreased Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment Achilles (VISA-A) and Foot and Ankle Outcome Scores Quality of Life (FAOS-QoL) subscale scores. Kinesiophobia was associated with heel raise completion with conflicting evidence on correlations with hop test performance. CONCLUSION: Increased kinesiophobia scores (> 35 points), measured by TSK are associated with worse PROMs, including increased pain, decreased quality of life, increased self-reported severity, and is also associated with poorer physical performance measures in patients with AT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".