Visual abstract 

Summary

The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for Achilles tendinopathy through a living systematic review with network meta-analysis. The review includes data from randomized controlled trials involving different treatments for Achilles tendinopathy. 

Data recources

Multiple databases including grey literature sources were searched up to February 2019.

Participants

We excluded trials with 10 or fewer participants per treatment arm or trials investigating tendon ruptures.

Trails

29 trials investigating 42 different treatments were included.

Comparations

Various treatments including wait-and-see, exercise therapy, injections, shockwave therapy, orthosis, medication, and surgery were investigated. 76% of the trials were at high risk of bias, while 24% had some concerns about bias. Active treatments were generally superior to wait-and-see for midportion Achilles tendinopathy at 3 months. At 12 months, exercise therapy, exercise+injection therapy, and exercise+night splint therapy were comparable with injection therapy for midportion tendinopathy. No network meta-analysis was possible for insertional Achilles tendinopathy due to limited data. For midportion tendinopathy, no clinically relevant difference was found between different active treatments at either 3-month or 12-month follow-up.

Outcome

The study suggests that exercise therapy could be a suitable initial treatment option due to its ease of prescription, low cost, and minimal harms. The living network meta-analysis identified large uncertainty in the comparative estimates due to the lack of trials at low risk of bias. The study provides insights for clinical decision-making in Achilles tendinopathy treatment. The primary outcome measure used was the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire. The study is part of the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline for Achilles tendinopathy and is updated regularly. Patient involvement and pilot interviews were conducted to determine relevant outcomes. The study’s findings are based on a living systematic review approach, assuming new knowledge will appear over time. The review aims to improve clinical decision-making and promote faster translation of evidence into practice.

My Skill
Web Designer 99%