ICON 2023: International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus – the core outcome set for Achilles tendinopathy (COS-AT) using a systematic review and a Delphi study of professional participants and patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To develop a core outcome set for Achilles tendinopathy (COS-AT) for use in clinical trials we performed a five-step process including (1) a systematic review of available outcome measurement instruments, (2) an online survey on truth and feasibility of the available measurement instruments, (3) an assessment of the methodological quality of the selected outcome measurement instruments, (4) an online survey on the outcome measurement instruments as COS and (5) a consensus in-person meeting. Both surveys were completed by healthcare professionals and patients. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology guidelines with a 70% threshold for consensus were followed. We identified 233 different outcome measurement instruments from 307 included studies; 177 were mapped within the International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus core domains. 31 participants (12 patients) completed the first online survey (response rate 94%). 22/177 (12%) outcome measurement instruments were deemed truthful and feasible and their measurement properties were evaluated. 29 participants (12 patients) completed the second online survey (response rate 88%) and three outcome measurement instruments were endorsed: the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles questionnaire, the single-leg heel rise test and evaluating pain after activity using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0-10). 12 participants (1 patient) attended the final consensus meeting, and 1 additional outcome measurement instrument was endorsed: evaluating pain during activity/loading using a VAS (0-10). It is recommended that the identified COS-AT will be used in future clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention. This will facilitate comparing outcomes of intervention strategies, data pooling and further progression of knowledge about AT. As COS-AT is implemented, further evidence on measurement properties of included measures and new outcome measurement instruments should lead to its review and refinement.
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 | 0.315 | 0.350 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".