Systematic Reviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Orthop. Jul 18, 2015; 6(6): 491-497
Published online Jul 18, 2015. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i6.491
Table 2 Coleman Methodology Score criteria for studies reporting the outcomes of surgery for Achilles tendinopathy[9]
SectionNumber or factorScore
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)> 6010
< 20, not stated0
Mean follow-up (mo)> 245
< 12, not stated, or unclear0
Number of different surgical procedures included in each reported outcome. More than one surgical technique may be assessed but separate outcomes should be reportedOne surgical procedure only10
More than one surgical procedure, but > 90% of subjects undergoing the one procedure7
Not stated, unclear, or < 90% of subjects undergoing the one procedure0
Type of studyRandomized control trial15
Prospective cohort study10
Retrospective cohort study0
Diagnostic certainty (use of preoperative ultrasound, MRI, or postoperative histopathology to confirm diagnosis)In all5
In > 80%3
In < 80%, not stated, or unclear0
Description of surgical procedure givenAdequate (technique stated and necessary details of that type of procedure given)5
Fair (technique only stated without elaboration)3
Inadequate, not stated, or unclear0
Description of postoperative rehabilitationWell described with > 80% of patients complying10
Well described with 60%-80% of patients complying5
Protocol not reported or < 60%-80% of patients complying0
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 defined2
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 reliability3
Use of outcome with good sensitivity3
Procedure for assessing outcomesSubjects recruited (results not taken from surgeons’ file)5
Investigator independent of surgeon4
Written assessment3
Completion of assessment by subjects themselves with minimal investigator assistance3
Description of subject selection processSelection criteria reported and unbiased5
Recruitment rate reported: > 80% or < 80%5
Eligible subjects not included in the study satisfactorily accounted for or 100% recruitment5