Explore the vast range of titles available.

The goal of the OPTIKNEE consensus is to improve knee and overall health, to prevent osteoarthritis (OA) after a traumatic knee injury. The consensus followed a seven-step hybrid process. Expert groups conducted 7 systematic reviews to synthesise the current evidence and inform recommendations on the burden of knee injuries; risk factors for post-traumatic knee OA; rehabilitation to prevent post-traumatic knee OA; and patient-reported outcomes, muscle function and functional performance tests to monitor people at risk of post-traumatic knee OA. Draft consensus definitions, and clinical and research recommendations were generated, iteratively refined, and discussed at 6, tri-weekly, 2-hour videoconferencing meetings. After each meeting, items were finalised before the expert group (n=36) rated the level of appropriateness for each using a 9-point Likert scale, and recorded dissenting viewpoints through an anonymous online survey. Seven definitions, and 8 clinical recommendations (who to target, what to target and when, rehabilitation approach and interventions, what outcomes to monitor and how) and 6 research recommendations (research priorities, study design considerations, what outcomes to monitor and how) were voted on. All definitions and recommendations were rated appropriate (median appropriateness scores of 7–9) except for two subcomponents of one clinical recommendation, which were rated uncertain (median appropriateness score of 4.5–5.5). Varying levels of evidence supported each recommendation. Clinicians, patients, researchers and other stakeholders may use the definitions and recommendations to advocate for, guide, develop, test and implement person-centred evidence-based rehabilitation programmes following traumatic knee injury, and facilitate data synthesis to reduce the burden of knee post-traumatic knee OA.

There is no agreement on how to classify, define or diagnose hip-related pain—a common cause of hip and groin pain in young and middle-aged active adults. This complicates the work of clinicians and researchers. The International Hip-related Pain Research Network consensus group met in November 2018 in Zurich aiming to make recommendations on how to classify, define and diagnose hip disease in young and middle-aged active adults with hip-related pain as the main symptom. Prior to the meeting we performed a scoping review of electronic databases in June 2018 to determine the definition, epidemiology and diagnosis of hip conditions in young and middle-aged active adults presenting with hip-related pain. We developed and presented evidence-based statements for these to a panel of 37 experts for discussion and consensus agreement. Both non-musculoskeletal and serious hip pathological conditions (eg, tumours, infections, stress fractures, slipped capital femoral epiphysis), as well as competing musculoskeletal conditions (eg, lumbar spine) should be excluded when diagnosing hip-related pain in young and middle-aged active adults. The most common hip conditions in young and middle-aged active adults presenting with hip-related pain are: (1) femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome, (2) acetabular dysplasia and/or hip instability and (3) other conditions without a distinct osseous morphology (labral, chondral and/or ligamentum teres conditions), and that these terms are used in research and clinical practice. Clinical examination and diagnostic imaging have limited diagnostic utility; a comprehensive approach is therefore essential. A negative flexion–adduction–internal rotation test helps rule out hip-related pain although its clinical utility is limited. Anteroposterior pelvis and lateral femoral head–neck radiographs are the initial diagnostic imaging of choice—advanced imaging should be performed only when requiring additional detail of bony or soft-tissue morphology (eg, for definitive diagnosis, research setting or when planning surgery). We recommend clear, detailed and consistent methodology of bony morphology outcome measures (definition, measurement and statistical reporting) in research. Future research on conditions with hip-related pain as the main symptom should include high-quality prospective studies on aetiology and prognosis. The most common hip conditions in active adults presenting with hip-related pain are: (1) FAI syndrome, (2) acetabular dysplasia and/or hip instability and (3) other conditions without distinct osseous morphology including labral, chondral and/or ligamentum teres conditions. The last category should not be confused with the incidental imaging findings of labral, chondral and/or ligamentum teres pathology in asymptomatic people. Future research should refine our current recommendations by determining the clinical utility of clinical examination and diagnostic imaging in prospective studies.

Background There is an increasing call to use patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in health outcome research, because the perspective of patients is an essential part concerning the end results of health care. The coverage of patients' perspective by PROMs relevant in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been examined regarding all domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) except personal factors (PFs). Since the ICF did not classify PF, some researchers attempted to provide a classification of the PFs. Objectives We aimed to identify themes meaningful to people with RA, to determine which of these were attributed to PFs previously and to explore their coverage by PROMs. Methods We explored life stories to identify themes meaningful to people with RA and determined whether they have been previously attributed to PFs in the existing literature. Additionally we conducted a systematic literature search to identify PROMs relevant in RA. Finally, we explored whether the identified PROMs cover those themes which were attributed PFs previously. Results Twenty-two themes were found to be meaningful to 15 people with RA, of which 13 were attributed to PFs previously. Five themes were linked to activity and participation or environmental factors and four were not covered by the ICF. The systematic literature search resulted in the identification of 33 PROMs. Of these, the London Coping with Rheumatoid Arthritis Questionnaire and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Self-Efficacy Questionnaire covered most PFs. Examples of the coverage of themes attributed to PFs by PROMs are depicted at the Table 1.

Study designProspective quasi-experimental study, pre- and post-design.ObjectivesAssess safety, feasibility, training characteristics and changes in gait function for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) using the robotic exoskeletons from Ekso Bionics.SettingNine European rehabilitation centres.MethodsRobotic exoskeleton gait training, three times weekly over 8 weeks. Time upright, time walking and steps in the device (training characteristics) were recorded longitudinally. Gait and neurological function were measured by 10 Metre Walk Test (10 MWT), Timed Up and Go (TUG), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Walking Index for Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI) II and Lower Extremity Motor Score (LEMS).ResultsFifty-two participants completed the training protocol. Median age: 35.8 years (IQR 27.5–52.5), men/women: N = 36/16, neurological level of injury: C1-L2 and severity: AIS A–D (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale). Time since injury (TSI) < 1 year, N = 25; > 1 year, N = 27.No serious adverse events occurred. Three participants dropped out following ankle swelling (overuse injury). Four participants sustained a Category II pressure ulcer at contact points with the device but completed the study and skin normalized. Training characteristics increased significantly for all subgroups. The number of participants with TSI < 1 year and gait function increased from 20 to 56% (P = 0.004) and 10MWT, TUG, BBS and LEMS results improved (P < 0.05). The number of participants with TSI > 1 year and gait function, increased from 41 to 44% and TUG and BBS results improved (P < 0.05).ConclusionsExoskeleton training was generally safe and feasible in a heterogeneous sample of persons with SCI. Results indicate potential benefits on gait function and balance.

Hip-related pain is a well-recognised complaint among active young and middle-aged active adults. People experiencing hip-related disorders commonly report pain and reduced functional capacity, including difficulties in executing activities of daily living. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential to accurately examine and compare the effects of different treatments on disability in those with hip pain. In November 2018, 38 researchers and clinicians working in the field of hip-related pain met in Zurich, Switzerland for the first International Hip-related Pain Research Network meeting. Prior to the meeting, evidence summaries were developed relating to four prioritised themes. This paper discusses the available evidence and consensus process from which recommendations were made regarding the appropriate use of PROMs to assess disability in young and middle-aged active adults with hip-related pain. Our process to gain consensus had five steps: (1) systematic review of systematic reviews; (2) preliminary discussion within the working group; (3) update of the more recent high-quality systematic review and examination of the psychometric properties of PROMs according to established guidelines; (4) formulation of the recommendations considering the limitations of the PROMs derived from the examination of their quality; and (5) voting and consensus. Out of 102 articles retrieved, 6 systematic reviews were selected and assessed for quality according to AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Two showed moderate quality. We then updated the most recent review. The updated literature search resulted in 10 additional studies that were included in the qualitative synthesis. The recommendations based on evidence summary and PROMs limitations were presented at the consensus meeting. The group makes the following recommendations: (1) the Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) and the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT) instruments (long and reduced versions) are the most appropriate PROMs to use in young and middle-aged active adults with hip-related pain; (2) more research is needed into the utility of the HAGOS and the iHOT instruments in a non-surgical treatment context; and (3) generic quality of life measures such as the EuroQoL-5 Dimension Questionnaire and the Short Form Health Survey-36 may add value for researchers and clinicians in this field. We conclude that as none of the instruments shows acceptable quality across various psychometric properties, more methods studies are needed to further evaluate the validity of these PROMS—the HAGOS and iHOT—as well as the other (currently not recommended) PROMS.

BackgroundExercise is considered important in the management of patients with rheumatic diseases, but the effect of high intensity exercises on disease activity is unknown.ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of high intensity exercises on disease activity in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).MethodAssessor blinded multicentre randomised controlled trial. 100 patients (aged from their 20s to their 60s) with axSpA were randomly assigned to an exercise group or to a no-intervention control group. The exercise group performed cardiorespiratory and muscular strength exercises at high intensity over 3 months. The control group received standard care and was instructed to maintain their usual physical activity level. Primary outcome was disease activity measured with the Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) Disease Activity Scale (ASDAS, higher score=worst) and the Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI, 0–10, 10=worst). Secondary outcomes were inflammatory markers, physical function and cardiovascular (CV)-health. There was patient involvement in the design and reporting of this study.Results97 of the 100 (97%) randomised patients completed the measurements after the intervention. There was a significant treatment effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (ASDAS: −0.6 [–0.8 to –0.3], p<0.001 and BASDAI: −1.2 [–1.8 to –0.7], p<0.001). Significant treatment effects were also seen for inflammation, physical function and CV-health.ConclusionHigh intensity exercises reduced disease symptoms (pain, fatigue, stiffness) and also inflammation in patients with axSpA. It improves patients’ function and CV health. This debunks concerns that high intensity exercise might exacerbate disease activity in patients with axSpA.Trial registration number NCT02356874.

Monitoring core body temperature (Tc) during training and competitions, especially in a hot environment, can help enhance an athlete’s performance, as well as lower the risk for heat stroke. Accordingly, a noninvasive sensor that allows reliable monitoring of Tc would be highly beneficial in this context. One such novel non-invasive sensor was recently introduced onto the market (CORE, greenTEG, Rümlang, Switzerland), but, to our knowledge, a validation study of this device has not yet been reported. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the CORE sensor. In Study I, 12 males were subjected to a low-to-moderate heat load by performing, on two separate occasions several days apart, two identical 60-min bouts of steady-state cycling in the laboratory at 19 °C and 30% relative humidity. In Study II, 13 males were subjected to moderate-to-high heat load by performing 90 min of cycling in the laboratory at 31 °C and 39% relative humidity. In both cases the core body temperatures indicated by the CORE sensor were compared to the corresponding values obtained using a rectal sensor (Trec). The first major finding was that the reliability of the CORE sensor is acceptable, since the mean bias between the two identical trials of exercise (0.02 °C) was not statistically significant. However, under both levels of heat load, the body temperature indicated by the CORE sensor did not agree well with Trec, with approximately 50% of all paired measurements differing by more than the predefined threshold for validity of ≤0.3 °C. In conclusion, the results obtained do not support the manufacturer’s claim that the CORE sensor provides a valid measure of core body temperature.

The 1st International Hip-related Pain Research Network meeting discussed four prioritised themes concerning hip-related pain in young to middle-aged adults: (1) diagnosis and classification of hip-related pain; (2) patient-reported outcome measures for hip-related pain; (3) measurement of physical capacity for hip-related pain; (4) physiotherapist-led treatment for hip-related pain. Thirty-eight expert researchers and clinicians working in the field of hip-related pain attended the meeting. This manuscript relates to the theme of physiotherapist-led treatments for hip-related pain. A systematic review on the efficacy of physiotherapist-led interventions for hip-related pain (published separately) was conducted and found that strong evidence for physiotherapist-led treatments was lacking. Prior to the meeting, draft consensus recommendations for consideration in the meeting were also developed based on the systematic review. The draft consensus recommendations were presented to all of the meeting participants via email, at least 1 week prior to the meeting. At the meeting, these recommendations were discussed, revised and voted on. Six recommendations for clinical practice and five recommendations for research were included and all gained consensus. Recommendations for clinical practice were that (i) Exercise-based treatments are recommended for people with hip-related pain. (ii) Exercise-based treatment should be at least 3 months duration. (iii) Physiotherapist-led rehabilitation after hip surgery should be undertaken. (iv) Patient-reported outcome measures, measures of physical impairment and measures of psychosocial factors should be used to monitor response to treatment. (v) Physical activity (that may include sport) is recommended for people with hip-related pain. (vi) Clinicians should discuss patient expectations, use shared-decision making and provide education. Recommendations for research were (i) Reporting of exercise programmes: Exercise descriptors such as load magnitude, number of repetitions and sets, duration of whole programme, duration of contractile element of exercise, duration of one repetition, time under tension, rest between repetitions, range of motion through which the exercise is performed, and rest between exercise sessions should be reported. (ii) Research should investigate the optimal frequency, intensity, time, type, volume and progression of exercise therapy. (iii) Research should examine the effect of patient education in people with hip-related pain. (iv) Research should investigate the effect of other treatments used in people with hip-related pain (for example: manual therapy, medications, injections). (v) Research should examine the impact of comorbidities and social determinants on treatment effectiveness in people with hip-related pain. Clinicians and researchers working with young to middle-aged active adults with hip-related pain may use these consensus recommendations to guide, develop, test and implement individualised, evidence-based physiotherapist-led rehabilitation programmes.