Objective: To assess the effectiveness of heavy eccentric calf training (HECT) in comparison with natural history, traditional physiotherapy, sham interventions or other exercise interventions for improvements in pain and function in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy. Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted as per the PRISMA guidelines. Data sources: PUBMED, CINAHL (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) were searched from inception until 24 September 2018. Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing HECT to natural history, sham exercise, traditional physiotherapy and other exercise interventions were included. Primary outcome assessing pain and function was the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment-Achilles. Results: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. This review suggests HECT may be superior to both natural history, mean difference (MD) (95% CI) of 20.6 (11.7 to 29.5, one study) and traditional physiotherapy, MD (95% CI) of 17.70 (3.75 to 31.66, two studies). Following removal of one study, at high risk of bias, due to pre-planned sensitivity analysis, this review suggests HECT may be inferior to other exercise interventions, MD (95% CI) of −5.65 (-10.51 to −0.79, three studies). However, this difference is unlikely to be clinically significant. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that HECT may be superior to natural history and traditional physiotherapy while HECT may be inferior to other exercise interventions. However, due to methodological limitations, small sample size and a lack of data we are unable to be confident in the results of the estimate of the effect, as the true effect is likely to be substantially different. Systematic review registry: PROSPERO registration number: CRD4201804493 Protocol reference: This protocol has been published open access: Murphy M, Travers MJ, Gibson, W. Is heavy eccentric calf training superior to natural history, sham rehabilitation, traditional physiotherapy and other exercise interventions for pain and function in mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy? Systematic Reviews 2018; 7: 58

Management of mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy is a challenge for both clinicians and researchers. Alteration in tendon structure, muscle performance and pain processing mechanisms have been suggested as mechanisms driving improvement in pain and function. However, few trials have used consistent outcome measures to track changes in pain and function. 1) To identify all outcomes measures used in trials utilizing exercise-based interventions for mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy (AT) that assess self-reported pain and function and to report on the reliability and validity of the identified measures, and 2) Propose measures to optimally assess self-reported pain and function in patients with AT. Literature Review. Three major electronic databases were searched from inception until May 2016 for studies using isometric, eccentric or isotonic loading protocols for mid-portion AT. Randomized and non-randomized trials of isometric, eccentric or isotonic loading in people with mid-portion AT. Forty-six studies were included and all outcome measures assessing self-reported pain and function were extracted. While a variety of outcome measures have been used, few have provided reliability data. There is evidence to suggest that the Victorian Institute of Sports Assessment- Achilles (VISA-A) is the only valid and reliable measure of self-reported pain and function for people with mid-portion AT. No other outcome measures have been validated in mid-portion AT. The VISA-A remains the gold standard for assessing pain and function in mid-portion AT. However, while the validity or reliability of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) of pain during a functional task has not been established it may be a better measure of immediate treatment effect. 5.

Objectives Report the injury epidemiology of law enforcement and firefighter recruits. Design A systematic epidemiological review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines was completed. Data sources Five online databases were searched from database inception to 5 May 2021. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Prospective and retrospective studies that reported data on musculoskeletal injuries sustained by law enforcement or firefighter recruits were included. We reported on all components of injury where data were available. All injury incidence rates were calculated as per 1000 training days (Poisson 95% CI) to allow comparisons between studies. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality Assessment Checklist for Prevalence Studies. Results No studies reporting firefighter recruits were identified. Eight published studies that reported on injuries to law enforcement recruits were identified. The studies were all low quality, and the credibility of the evidence was assessed as very low. Seven studies reported medical attention injuries, and one study reported the number of medical withdrawals from a recruit training programme. The prevalence of law enforcement recruits with medical attention injuries ranged from 13.7% to 24.5%. The overall medical attention injury incidence rate for law enforcement recruits ranged from 1.67 injuries per 1000 training days (Poisson 95% CI 1.00 to 2.34 injuries per 1000 training days) to 4.24 injuries per 1000 training days (Poisson 95% CI 2.97 to 5.51 injuries per 1000 training days). Conclusion This review reported the prevalence and incidence rates for musculoskeletal injuries in law enforcement officers. However, the credibility of the evidence is very low. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021251084.