Analysing the outcome of surgery for chronic Achilles tendinopathy over the last 50 years

Table 2 Coleman Methodology Score criteria for studies reporting the outcomes of surgery for Achilles tendinopathy[9]

Section	Number or factor	Score
Part A - only one score to be given for each of the seven sections
Study size - number of tendons (N) (if multiple follow-up, multiply N by number of times subjects followed up)	> 60	10
	41-60	7
	20-40	4
	< 20, not stated	0
Mean follow-up (mo)	> 24	5
	12-24	2
	< 12, not stated, or unclear	0
Number of different surgical procedures included in each reported outcome. More than one surgical technique may be assessed but separate outcomes should be reported	One surgical procedure only	10
	More than one surgical procedure, but > 90% of subjects undergoing the one procedure	7
	Not stated, unclear, or < 90% of subjects undergoing the one procedure	0
Type of study	Randomized control trial	15
	Prospective cohort study	10
	Retrospective cohort study	0
Diagnostic certainty (use of preoperative ultrasound, MRI, or postoperative histopathology to confirm diagnosis)	In all	5
	In > 80%	3
	In < 80%, not stated, or unclear	0
Description of surgical procedure given	Adequate (technique stated and necessary details of that type of procedure given)	5
	Fair (technique only stated without elaboration)	3
	Inadequate, not stated, or unclear	0
Description of postoperative rehabilitation	Well described with > 80% of patients complying	10
	Well described with 60%-80% of patients complying	5
	Protocol not reported or < 60%-80% of patients complying	0
Part B - scores may be given for each option in each of the three sections if applicable
Outcome criteria (if outcome criteria is vague and does not specify subjects’ sporting capacity, score is automatically 0 for this section)	Outcome measures clearly defined	2
	Timing of outcome assessment clearly stated (e.g., at best outcome after surgery or at follow-up)	2
	Use of outcome criteria that has reported good reliability	3
	Use of outcome with good sensitivity	3
Procedure for assessing outcomes	Subjects recruited (results not taken from surgeons’ file)	5
	Investigator independent of surgeon	4
	Written assessment	3
	Completion of assessment by subjects themselves with minimal investigator assistance	3
Description of subject selection process	Selection criteria reported and unbiased	5
	Recruitment rate reported: > 80% or < 80%	5
	Eligible subjects not included in the study satisfactorily accounted for or 100% recruitment	5