QUESTION: What are the core capabilities that physiotherapists need in order to deliver quality care via videoconferencing? DESIGN: A three-round modified e-Delphi survey. PARTICIPANTS: An international Delphi panel comprising a Steering Group and experts in the field, including physiotherapy researchers, physiotherapy clinicians, representatives of physiotherapy organisations, and consumers. METHODS: The draft framework was developed by the research team and Steering Group, based on relevant documents identified within the literature. The panel considered a draft framework of 73 specific capabilities mapped across eight domains. Over three rounds, panellists rated their agreement (Likert or numerical rating scales) on whether each capability was essential (core) for physiotherapists to deliver quality care via videoconferencing. Those capabilities achieving consensus, defined as 75% of the panel ratings being ≥ 7 out of 10 in Round 3, were retained. RESULTS: A total of 130 panellists from 32 countries participated in Round 1, with retention rates of 65% and 60% in Rounds 2 and 3, respectively. The final framework comprised 60 capabilities across seven domains: compliance (n = 7 capabilities); patient privacy and confidentiality (n = 4); patient safety (n = 7); technology skills (n = 7); telehealth delivery (n = 16); assessment and diagnosis (n = 7); and care planning and management (n = 12). CONCLUSION: This framework outlines the specific core capabilities required of physiotherapists to provide quality care via videoconferencing. The core capability framework provides guidance for physiotherapists to deliver care via videoconferencing and will help inform future development of physiotherapy curricula and professional development initiatives in the delivery of telehealth.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and harms of higher exercise dose, including higher exercise load or higher volume, with lower exercise dose (lower load or lower volume) in individuals with rotator cuff tendinopathy. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception to March 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing higher versus lower dose exercise that investigated function and pain (overall, activity, night) and adverse event outcomes were independently determined by 2 reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. The primary endpoint was at least 6 weeks to 3 months (other endpoints included up to 6 weeks and beyond 3 months) and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to assess evidence certainty. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three trials (N=283), none at low risk of bias for all domains, were included. Low-certainty evidence (1 trial, N=102) indicated improved function (20 points [95% confidence interval, 12-28] on a 0-100 point scale) with higher load and volume exercise at 3 months, but little or no clinically important between-group difference in activity or night pain (overall pain not reported). Very low-certainty evidence (1 trial, N=120) indicated higher load exercise conferred no function benefits over lower load exercise at 6 weeks. Very low-certainty evidence (1 trial, N=61) indicated benefit of uncertain clinical importance in function with higher versus lower volume exercise at 3 months and clinically important benefit at more than 3 months (pain outcomes not reported). The risk of adverse events was uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: There are few studies that have investigated higher dose exercise for rotator cuff tendinopathy. There was low to very low certainty and conflicting evidence regarding the value of higher exercise dose in individuals with rotator cuff tendinopathy.

Importance: Thigh muscle weakness is associated with knee discomfort and osteoarthritis disease progression. Little is known about the efficacy of high-intensity strength training in patients with knee osteoarthritis or whether it may worsen knee symptoms. Objective: To determine whether high-intensity strength training reduces knee pain and knee joint compressive forces more than low-intensity strength training and more than attention control in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial conducted at a university research center in North Carolina that included 377 community-dwelling adults (≥50 years) with body mass index (BMI) ranging from 20 to 45 and with knee pain and radiographic knee osteoarthritis. Enrollment occurred between July 2012 and February 2016, and follow-up was completed September 2017. Interventions: Participants were randomized to high-intensity strength training (n = 127), low-intensity strength training (n = 126), or attention control (n = 124). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes at the 18-month follow-up were Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) knee pain (0 best-20 worst; minimally clinically important difference [MCID, 2]) and knee joint compressive force, defined as the maximal tibiofemoral contact force exerted along the long axis of the tibia during walking (MCID, unknown). Results: Among 377 randomized participants (mean age, 65 years; 151 women [40%]), 320 (85%) completed the trial. Mean adjusted (sex, baseline BMI, baseline outcome values) WOMAC pain scores at the 18-month follow-up were not statistically significantly different between the high-intensity group and the control group (5.1 vs 4.9; adjusted difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.1; P = .61) or between the high-intensity and low-intensity groups (5.1 vs 4.4; adjusted difference, 0.7; 95% CI, -0.1 to 1.6; P = .08). Mean knee joint compressive forces were not statistically significantly different between the high-intensity group and the control group (2453 N vs 2512 N; adjusted difference, -58; 95% CI, -282 to 165 N; P = .61), or between the high-intensity and low-intensity groups (2453 N vs 2475 N; adjusted difference, -21; 95% CI, -235 to 193 N; P = .85). There were 87 nonserious adverse events (high-intensity, 53; low-intensity, 30; control, 4) and 13 serious adverse events unrelated to the study (high-intensity, 5; low-intensity, 3; control, 5). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, high-intensity strength training compared with low-intensity strength training or an attention control did not significantly reduce knee pain or knee joint compressive forces at 18 months. The findings do not support the use of high-intensity strength training over low-intensity strength training or an attention control in adults with knee osteoarthritis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489462.

Purpose: To determine the duration of symptom relief following repeated administration of hyaluronic acid injections for osteoarthritis. Patients and Methods: This was a 6-year observational study with 623 consecutive patients who had received hyaluronic acid injections. The primary outcome measure was the mean time between injections measured in days. Classical one-sample 2-sided t-tests, one-way analysis of variances and post-hoc analyses were performed to determine if there were statistically significant differences between age, gender, radiographic severity and the type of joints injected. All patients were invited to complete an online post-treatment experience and satisfaction survey. Results: The analysis included 727 joints (mean Kellgren-Lawrence grade, 2.9 ± 0.8 (range 2-4)) in 623 patients (297 (47.7%) male; mean age at first injection, 57.8 ± 12.7 years (range 21.2-92.1)). Patients ranged from having 1-8 injections per joint. The mean time between injections in days was 466.8 ± 321.7 (2nd injection, 157 joints), 400.5 ± 164.7 (3rd injection, 58 joints), 378.2 ± 223.1 (4th injection, 27 joints), 405.3 ± 216.3 (5th injection, 7 joints), 268.4 ± 104.4 (6th injection, 5 joints), 289.8 ± 99.4 (7th injection, 4 joints), and 272.5 ± 33.2 (8th injection, 2 joints). Patients with grades 2 and 3 compared to grade 4 osteoarthritis experienced a longer time between injections (F (2, 154) = 3.53, p = 0.0316). No statistically significant differences were observed between age, gender, or joint groups. The survey included 233 participants (109 (46.8% male)). A total of 144 respondents (64.9%) recommended hyaluronic acid injections for osteoarthritis. Conclusion: Pain relief from hyaluronic acid injections was sustained for on average 466.8 days post initial treatment. Patients who received subsequent 3rd, 4th, and 5th injections also experienced extended duration of benefit. Patients with grades 2 or 3 osteoarthritis are more likely to experience a longer duration of relief.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent form of joint disease and commonly affects the hip. Hip OA is associated with a high socioeconomic burden. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) injection may be of benefit but quality evidence for HA use in hip OA is lacking. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ultrasound guided injection of a high molecular weight, non-animal derived, stabilised HA (NASHA) in patients with mild to moderate hip OA. METHODS: This single site study is an analysis of prospectively collected outcome data for 87 consecutive patients over a 2-year period who received a single HA (Durolane) injection for symptomatic hip OA. Inclusion criteria were male or female patients over 18-years of age with mild to moderate hip OA on x-ray. Patients with severe hip OA were excluded. The primary outcome measure was a modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) questionnaire at baseline and 6-weeks with a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 10 points. All adverse events were recorded and assessed. RESULTS: Data from 87 patients, 49 women and 38 men with mean age of 54 (SD = 10.8) were analysed. At baseline, mean mHHS was 58.47 (SD 14.31). At the 6 week follow up, mean mHHS improved to 71.30 (SD 16.46), a difference of 12.83 (p < 0.01). This was greater than the MCID of 10. No significant adverse events were encountered. Five patients reported short-lived injection site pain. CONCLUSION: A single injection of HA (NASHA) in the setting of hip joint OA was both safe and efficacious in this 87 patient cohort. Improvement in pain and function as measured with mHHS was statistically significant and reached the MCID of 10. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered on the 1st of February 2021 in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry with registry number ACTRN12621000098831 . All research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

OBJECTIVE: Explore prognostic factors for tibiofemoral (TFJ) and patellofemoral (PFJ) radiographic osteoarthritis (ROA) and 'symptoms plus ROA' (SOA), 32-37 years following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. DESIGN: Exploratory analysis, longitudinal cohort. METHODS: In 1980-1985, 251 patients aged 15-40 years with acute ACL rupture were allocated to early augmented or non-augmented repair (5 ± 4 days post-injury) plus rehabilitation, or rehabilitation alone. 127 of 190 participants who completed follow-up questionnaires were eligible. We classified ROA as TFJ/PFJ K&L Grade ≥2, and SOA as ROA plus pain and/or symptoms. Multivariable age-adjusted logistic regression investigated potential prognostic factors (assessed at 4 ± 1 year follow-up: ACL treatment, isokinetic quadriceps/hamstrings strength, single-leg-hop for distance, knee flexion/extension deficit, knee laxity, Tegner Activity Scale, Lysholm Scale; sex, baseline meniscus status). RESULTS: 127 patients were aged 58 ± 6 years; BMI 27 ± 4 kg/m2; 28% female; 59% had TFJ-ROA, 48% had TFJ-SOA (including n = 9 knee-arthroplasties), 36% had PFJ-ROA; 27% had PFJ-SOA. Baseline meniscus surgery was a prognostic factor for TFJ-ROA (multivariable age-adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 3.0 (1.2, 7.8)). A single-leg-hop limb symmetry index (LSI) < 90% was a prognostic factor for PFJ-ROA (5.1 (1.4, 18.7)) and PFJ-SOA (4.9 (1.2, 19.7)). Hamstrings strength LSI <90% was a prognostic factor for PFJ-SOA (5.0 (1.3, 19.3)). ACL treatment with rehabilitation-alone was associated with an 80% reduction in the odds of PFJ-SOA (0.2 (0.1-0.7)), compared with early ACL-repair. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are hypothesis generating, research is needed to determine whether ACL-injured individuals with these characteristics benefit from interventions to prevent or delay the onset of osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Ankle sprains are the most commonly reported injury in netball. Approximately four in five netball athletes will sustain an ankle sprain, up to half will go on to sustain recurrent ankle sprains, and nine in ten report perceived ankle instability. Historically, prevention and management strategies of ankle sprains and injuries have been investigated for a variety of sports, however, no literature reviews have investigated these in netball athletes, or compared these with current best-practice within the literature. Therefore, this scoping review aims to understand how netball athletes currently prevent and manage ankle sprains and to compare these approaches with best-practice recommendations. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases using keywords to capture studies with data or information related to the prevention and management of ankle sprains and injuries in netball. RESULTS: The search strategy captured 982 studies across all databases, with 30 netball studies included in this scoping review. Studies suggest netball athletes are not commonly referred to health professionals, do not undertake adequate rehabilitation, and almost immediately return to court following an ankle sprain or injury. Current best-practices suggest injury prevention programs and external ankle support effectively reduce ankle sprains and injuries; however, poor compliance and implementation may be a significant barrier. Currently, there is a lack of evidence that netball-specific footwear reduces the risk of ankle sprains. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest netball athletes do not implement current best-practice prevention and management strategies following an ankle sprain. This is despite evidence of the effectiveness of injury prevention programs, external ankle support, and adequate rehabilitation in reducing ankle sprain rates. Current-best practice prevention and management of ankle sprains should be considered by clinicians, coaches, and athletes to reduce the prevalence and chronicity of ankle sprains in netball.

BACKGROUND: The lower limb spasticity after stroke can affect the balance and gait of patients with stroke. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the effects of ankle plantar flexor spasticity level on balance in patients with stroke. METHODS: Patients with stroke were recruited from neurology and physiotherapy clinics in Tehran, Iran. Based on the level of ankle plantar flexor spasticity according to the Modified Modified Ashworth Scale (MMAS), the eligible patients with stroke were divided into 2 groups: high spasticity (MMAS score≥2) and low spasticity (MMAS score<2). The primary outcome measures were the MMAS scores, Activities-Specific Balance Confidence questionnaire scores, eyes-open and eyes-closed posturography measures, and Timed Up and Go test results. The secondary outcome measures were the ankle passive range of motion and ankle joint proprioception. The t test, mixed model univariate analysis of variance, and Spearman rank correlation were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Data collection and statistical analysis are complete. The interpretation of results is underway. We expect the results to be published in winter 2020. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that patients with high ankle plantar flexor spasticity after stroke will demonstrate greater balance dysfunction, which will worsen with impaired proprioception, passive range of motion, and eyes closed. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/16045.