Exercise parameters to consider for Achilles tendinopathy: a modified Delphi study with international experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the level of agreement among experts on the heel raise exercise parameters that influence midportion and insertional Achilles tendinopathy (AT) rehabilitation outcomes.An international expert panel in AT rehabilitation was invited to complete a three-round Delphi survey. In the first two rounds, experts were asked to review a pregenerated list of exercise parameters (based on the heel raise exercise) and rate their perceived influence on rehabilitation outcome, using a 5-point Likert scale. For each parameter, consensus criteria for major influence on rehabilitation were (a) median≥4, (b) ≥75% of scoring 4 or 5 and (c) IQR≤1. The third round aimed to rank the exercise parameters according to importance (from most to least important) during rehabilitation.17 experts participated in the entire Delphi process. A total of 16 exercise parameters were assessed, of which 4 (intensity of contraction, total time under tension, number of repetitions and sets, type of contraction) reached consensus as having a major influence on rehabilitation for midportion AT and 3 reached consensus for insertional AT (range of ankle dorsiflexion during the exercise, intensity of contraction, number of repetitions and sets). The rankings of parameters that reached consensus showed that contraction intensity was perceived as the most important variable for midportion AT rehabilitation, while range of ankle dorsiflexion was deemed the most important variable for insertional AT rehabilitation.This study identified key exercise parameters for mid-portion and insertional AT rehabilitation based on expert opinion. This information should assist practitioners in optimising their approach to deliver more effective, patient-specific exercises for AT rehabilitation.
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 | 0.087 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".