You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 55, Issue 20
  • REPORT-PFP: a consensus from the International Patellofemoral Research Network to improve REPORTing of quantitative PatelloFemoral Pain studies

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Consensus statement
REPORT-PFP: a consensus from the International Patellofemoral Research Network to improve REPORTing of quantitative PatelloFemoral Pain studies
  1. Christian J Barton1,2,3,
  2. Danilo De Oliveira Silva1,2,
  3. Sarah Morton4,
  4. Natalie J Collins5,
  5. Michael Skovdal Rathleff6,7,8,
  6. Bill Vicenzino5,
  7. Marienke van Middelkoop9,
  8. Kay M Crossley1,2,
  9. Michael J Callaghan10,11,12,
  10. James Selfe12,
  11. Sinead Holden6,7,
  12. Simon Lack4,13,
  13. Erin M Macri14,
  14. David M Bazett-Jones15,
  15. Jennifer E Earl-Boehm16,
  16. Henrik Riel7,
  17. Christopher M Powers17,
  18. Irene S Davis18,
  19. Dylan Morrissey4,19
  1. 1 Department of Physiotherapy, Podiatry and Prosthetics and Orthotics, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3 Department of Surgery, St Vincent’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4 Sports and Exercise Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  5. 5 Physiotherapy, The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
  6. 6 Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
  7. 7 Centre for General Practice, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
  8. 8 Department of Occupational therapy and Physiotherapy, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
  9. 9 Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC Medical University Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  10. 10 Medical Department, Manchester United Football Club Ltd, Manchester, UK
  11. 11 Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  12. 12 Department of Health Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
  13. 13 Pure Sports Medicine, London, UK
  14. 14 Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  15. 15 College of Health and Human Services, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA
  16. 16 Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
  17. 17 University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
  18. 18 Spaulding National Running Center, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
  19. 19 Physiotherapy Department, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christian J Barton, Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, La Trobe University - Bundoora Campus, Melbourne, VIC 3086, Australia; christian{at}completesportscare.com.au

Abstract

Patellofemoral pain is a common and often debilitating musculoskeletal condition. Clinical translation and evidence synthesis of patellofemoral pain research are compromised by heterogenous and often inadequately reported study details. This consensus statement and associated checklist provides standards for REPORTing of quantitative PatelloFemoral Pain (REPORT-PFP) research to enhance clinical translation and evidence synthesis, and support clinician engagement with research and data collection. A three-stage Delphi process was initiated at the 2015 International Patellofemoral Research Network (iPFRN) retreat. An initial e-Delphi activity (n=24) generated topics and items, which were refined at the 2017 iPFRN retreat, and voted on prior to and following the 2019 iPFRN retreat (n=51 current and past retreat participants). Voting criteria included ‘strongly recommended’ (essential), ‘recommended’ (encouraged) and uncertain/unsure. An item was included in the checklist if ≥70% respondents voted ‘recommended’. Items receiving ≥70% votes for ‘strongly recommended’ were labelled as such. The final REPORT-PFP checklist includes 31 items (11 strongly recommended, 20 recommended), covering (i) demographics (n=2,4); (ii) baseline symptoms and previous treatments (n=3,7); (iii) outcome measures (2,4); (iv) outcomes measure description (n=1,2); (v) clinical trial methodology (0,3) and (vi) reporting study results (n=3,0). The REPORT-PFP checklist is ready to be used by researchers and clinicians. Strong stakeholder engagement from clinical academics during development means consistent application by the international patellofemoral pain research community is likely. Checklist adherence will improve research accessibility for clinicians and enhance future evidence synthesis.

  • knee
  • consensus
  • knowledge translation
  • meta-analysis
  • rehabilitation

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-103700

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.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @DrChrisBarton, @DrDanilo_Silva, @drsarahmorton, @NatJCollins, @Bill_Vicenzino, @mvanmiddelkoop, @Sinead_Holden, @simonthephysio, @Henrik_Riel, @DrDylanM

    • Contributors Initial research design was carried out by DM, CJB and SM following the 2015 retreat led by MJC and JS. Initial survey content was guided by DM, CJB, SM, MJC, MvM, KMC, MSR and BV. SM, CJB and DM analysed stage 1 findings to inform subsequent stages. NJC and BV facilitated the 2017 retreat. Stage 2 small group discussions were led by CJB, DDOS, NJC, MSR, BV, MVM, KMC, MJC, JS, SH, SL, EMM, CMP and ISD. CJB, MVM, KMC, MSR, BV, NJC and DM developed the final consensus voting surveys. DB-J and JEE-B facilitated the 2019 retreat and voting on potential checklist items. CJB coordinated final consensus discussions. CJB and DDOS led synthesis of results following consensus voting surveys. All authors contributed to read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Dr Morrissey was part funded by the NIHR/HEE Senior Clinical Lecturer scheme. This report presents independent research part-funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) CAT SCL-2013-04-003. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • 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.