Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objective Define a best practice guide for managing people with patellofemoral pain (PFP).
Methods A mixed-methods convergent segregated synthesis of meta-analysed data with a thematic analysis of semistructured interviews and focus groups. Agreement between subproject results informed the strength of clinical recommendation for interventions eligible for best practice recommendation.
Data sources Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, reference lists and citation tracking; semistructured interviews of people with PFP; and semistructured interviews and focus groups with clinical experts.
Eligibility criteria High-quality (PEDro scale >7) randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were retained for efficacy estimation using meta-analysis. People with PFP were required to have experienced an episode of care in the past 6 months and clinical experts were required to have>5 years of clinical experience alongside direct involvement in research.
Results Data from 65 high-quality RCTs involving 3796 participants informed 11 meta-analyses of interventions. Interviews with 12 people with PFP led to 3 themes and interviews with 19 clinical experts led to 4 themes. These were further explored in three clinical expert focus groups. Best practice for PFP should first involve understanding a patient’s background risk factors, their reasons for seeking care, greatest symptoms, and physical impairments, to inform treatment selection. Synthesis led to six distinct interventions being recommended. Knee-targeted±hip-targeted exercise therapy underpinned by education should be delivered, with additional supporting interventions such as prefabricated foot orthoses, manual therapy, movement/running retraining, or taping decided on and tailored to a patient’s needs and preferences.
Conclusion A best practice guide based on a synthesis of three data streams recommends that exercise therapy and education be delivered as the primary intervention for people with PFP. Prescription of other supporting interventions should be aligned with the individual patient’s particular presentation following a thorough assessment.
- Knee
- Rehabilitation
- Qualitative Research
- Meta-analysis
- Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. All systematic review/meta-analysis dates are included in the manuscript or the published version (DOI:10.2519/jospt.2022.11359). Transcripts from any of the qualitative elements could be made available on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. All systematic review/meta-analysis dates are included in the manuscript or the published version (DOI:10.2519/jospt.2022.11359). Transcripts from any of the qualitative elements could be made available on reasonable request.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
X @Brad_Neal_07, @simonthephysio, @DrDylanM
Contributors BSN: conception, design, data collection, data analysis, data synthesis, manuscript writing. SL: conception, design, data collection, data analysis, data synthesis, manuscript writing.CB: design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing. DM: conception, design, data analysis, data synthesis, manuscript writing. DM is the guarantor.
Funding This work was supported by a Private Physiotherapy Education Foundation Scheme A2 research grant awarded to BSN, SL and DM.
Disclaimer The funding body had no input into the design, execution, or dissemination of the study.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.