Ultrasound imaging (US) is an accurate and reliable method used to diagnose tendinopathy. This systematic review was aimed at identifying common criteria and parameters used to diagnose tendinopathy, the methodological quality of studies and the predictive value of US. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with the Achilles, quadriceps and patella tendons being investigated. Overall, there was significant heterogeneity between the criteria used to diagnose tendinopathy utilising US. The methodological quality of included studies was "good." Additionally, meta-analysis revealed that US-identified abnormalities were predictive of future symptoms, and classification of tendinopathy using three US defined parameters indicated a higher relative risk of developing clinical tendinopathy compared with the use of two US-defined parameters. Further research into the development of a standardised US criterion that incorporates both clinical and US findings is required to allow for greater consistency in the diagnosis of tendinopathy.

AimTo develop a standardised ultrasound imaging (USI)-based criteria for the diagnosis of tendinopathy that aligns with the continuum model of tendon pathology. Secondary aims were to assess both the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the criteria.MethodsA criteria was developed following a face validity assessment and a total of 31 Achilles tendon ultrasound images were analysed. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were assessed for overall tendinopathy stage (normal, reactive/early dysrepair or late dysrepair/degenerative) as well as for individual parameters (thickness, echogenicity and vascularity). Quadratic weighted kappa (kw) was used to report on reliability.ResultsIntra-rater reliability was ‘substantial’ for overall tendinopathy staging (kw rater A; 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94, rater B; 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89) and ranged from ‘substantial’ to ‘almost perfect’ for thickness (kw rater A; 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90, rater B; 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98), echogenicity (kw rater A; 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95, rater B; 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.89) and vascularity (kw rater A; 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98, rater B; 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99). Inter-rater reliability ranged from ‘substantial’ to ‘almost perfect’ for overall tendinopathy staging (kw round 1; 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91, round 2; 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99), thickness (kw round 1; 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.83, round 2; 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.93), echogenicity (kw round 1; 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.85, round 2; 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.94) and vascularity (kw round 1; 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, round 2; 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98). Inter-rater reliability increased from ‘substantial’ in round 1 (kw 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91) to ‘almost perfect’ in round 2 (0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.99).ConclusionIntra-rater and inter-rater reliability were ‘substantial’ to ‘almost perfect’ when utilising an USI-based criteria to diagnose Achilles tendinopathy. This is the first study to use the continuum model of tendon pathology to develop an USI-based criteria to diagnose tendinopathy.

Background Achilles tendinopathy describes the clinical presentation of pain localised to the Achilles tendon and associated loss of function with tendon loading activities. However, clinicians display differing approaches to the diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy due to inconsistency in the clinical terminology, an evolving understanding of the pathophysiology, and the lack of consensus on clinical tests which could be considered the gold standard for diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy. The primary aim of this scoping review is to provide a method for clinically diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy that aligns with the nine core health domains. Methodology A scoping review was conducted to synthesise available evidence on the clinical diagnosis and clinical outcome measures of Achilles tendinopathy. Extracted data included author, year of publication, participant characteristics, methods for diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy and outcome measures. Results A total of 159 articles were included in this scoping review. The most commonly used subjective measure was self-reported location of pain, while additional measures included pain with tendon loading activity, duration of symptoms and tendon stiffness. The most commonly identified objective clinical test for Achilles tendinopathy was tendon palpation (including pain on palpation, localised tendon thickening or localised swelling). Further objective tests used to assess Achilles tendinopathy included tendon pain during loading activities (single-leg heel raises and hopping) and the Royal London Hospital Test and the Painful Arc Sign. The VISA-A questionnaire as the most commonly used outcome measure to monitor Achilles tendinopathy. However, psychological factors (PES, TKS and PCS) and overall quality of life (SF-12, SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L) were less frequently measured. Conclusions There is significant variation in the methodology and outcome measures used to diagnose Achilles tendinopathy. A method for diagnosing Achilles tendinopathy is proposed, that includes both results from the scoping review and recent recommendations for reporting results in tendinopathy.

No abstract