2 25 ICON 2023: Core Outcomes for Achilles Tendinopathy striving to ensure an equitable and proportional distribution based on gender and country of residence. To identify suitable professional participants, we used www.expertscape. com, a website that ranks professionals from clinical and academic domains based on their publications within specific medical fields (search term ‘Achilles tendon’ with search date 1st June 2021). We contacted these selected professional participants via email, extending invitations to participate in the panel. Once professional participants expressed their interest to participate, they received an email with an explanation of the process and their exact role. Hereafter, informed consent from all participants (both patients and professional participants) was obtained. Systematic review Step 1 – A systematic review on all available outcome measurement instruments We set up a search strategy to identify all available outcome measurement instruments used in prospective studies including patients with Achilles tendinopathy.5 We mapped the outcome measurement instruments into predefined health-related core domains (data have been published elsewhere).7 Consensus process Step 2 – Online survey to evaluate Truth and Feasibility of outcome measurement instruments (first round Delphi procedure) All original outcome measurement instruments within the core domains for tendinopathy and identified by the systematic review5 were evaluated during an international online survey using LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey GmbH, Germany), a software package designed for safe distribution of online surveys. The description of the outcome measurement instruments from the literature was used verbatim, so the experts (patients and professional participants) could rate exactly what had been used in the literature. Within the identified outcome measurement instruments, there were instances where multiple outcome measurement instruments described similar aspects but with slight variations. For example, pain on palpation was assessed using different formats such as a yes/no responses, a 0-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and a 5-point Likert scale. To ensure a comprehensive evaluation, we separately assessed these variations in measurement and presented them exactly as they were used in the literature. The international panel consisting of the selected professional participants and patients was invited to complete the survey. The selection process of the outcome measurement instruments in this second step was initiated according to the OMERACT filters, which uses Truth, Discrimination, and Feasibility as the core or the pillars for instrument selection.9 In this step we focused on the pillars Truth (which core domain is covered and ‘Is there a match with the target domain?’) and Feasibility (‘Is the outcome measurement instrument practical to use?’). The specific outcome measurement instruments were displayed and these questions were
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw