Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Outcome measures in the management of gluteal tendinopathy: a systematic review of their measurement properties
  1. Anthony M Nasser1,2,
  2. Angela M Fearon3,4,
  3. Alison Grimaldi5,
  4. Bill Vicenzino5,
  5. Rebecca Mellor5,
  6. Trevor Spencer3,4,
  7. Adam Ivan Semciw1,6
  1. 1 School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Graduate School of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3 Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  4. 4 Trauma and Orthopaedic Research Unit, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  5. 5 School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  6. 6 Allied Health, Northern Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Anthony M Nasser, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; a.nasser{at}


Objective Evaluate properties of outcome measures for gluteal tendinopathy.

Design Multistage scoping/systematic review.

Data sources Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDISCUS were searched (December 2021) to identify measures used to evaluate gluteal tendinopathy. Measures were mapped to the core health domains for tendinopathy. Medline, CINAHL, Embase and PubMed were searched (December 2021) for studies evaluating measurement properties of gluteal tendinopathy outcome measures captured in the initial search. Both reviews included studies that evaluated a treatment in participants with gluteal tendinopathy, diagnosed by a professional. Consensus-based-Standards for the Selection of Health Instruments methodology were followed—including bias assessment and synthesis of findings.

Results Six studies reported on the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment—Gluteal Tendinopathy (VISA-G). One study reported on the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)—activities of daily living (ADL) and Sport.

The VISA-G had moderate-quality evidence of sufficient construct validity (known group) and responsiveness (pre–post intervention), low-quality evidence of sufficient reliability, measurement error, comprehensibility and insufficient construct validity (convergent), and very low-quality evidence of sufficient comprehensiveness, relevance and responsiveness (comparison with other outcome measures).

Both the HOS(ADL) and HOS(Sport) had very low-quality evidence of sufficient reliability, relevance and insufficient construct validity and comprehensiveness. The HOS(ADL) had very low-quality evidence of sufficient comprehensibility and insufficient measurement error. The HOS(Sport) had very low quality evidence of inconsistent comprehensibility and sufficient measurement error.

Conclusion Rigorously validated outcome measures for gluteal tendinopathy are lacking. The VISA-G is the preferred available option to capture the disability associated with gluteal tendinopathy.

  • Hip
  • Weights and Measures
  • Tendinopathy

Statistics from

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.


  • Twitter @TonyNasserPT, @AngeFearon, @Bill_Vicenzino, @ASemciw

  • Contributors AMN, AIS, BV, RM, AMF and AG developed the study. AMN performed the search, data extraction, data analysis, quality assessment and wrote the manuscript. TS and AMF assisted with study selection and data extraction. RM assisted with quality assessment. AIS assisted with data analysis. AG, AMF, RM, TS and BV assisted with writing and editing of the 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.

  • Competing interests One of the authors published the original development article of the VISA-G. This author was not involved in the quality assessment, analysis of the data or writing of results regarding this outcome.

  • 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.