You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PhD Academy Award
Medial tibial stress syndrome: diagnosis, treatment and outcome assessment (PhD Academy Award)
  1. Marinus Winters1,2
  1. 1 Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Sciences and Sports Department, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Research Unit for General Practice in Aalborg, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Dr Marinus Winters, Research Unit for General Practice in Aalborg, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg 9220, Denmark ; marinuswinters{at}hotmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098907

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    What did I do?

    My PhD consisted of three principal studies: (1) I investigated the reliability of diagnosing medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) using history and physical examination. (2) Then, I examined if there is an evidence-based treatment for MTSS in a systematic review. (3) Finally, I developed and validated a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for athletes with MTSS: the MTSS score.

    Why did I do it?

    MTSS is one of the most common conditions in running athletes. Yet, it was unknown how to best diagnose (1) or treat it (2) and there was no PROM for athletes with MTSS (3). In particular:

    1. MTSS: a clinical diagnosis?

      The pathology of MTSS is equivocal; it’s a clinical pain condition. Therefore, making the diagnosis based on history and physical examination is the most logical approach. However, it was unclear if this can be done …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.