Maffulli, Nicola

Objectives While extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) may be an efficacious adjunctive treatment option for musculoskeletal injuries, current research is limited by significant heterogeneity within treatment protocols. This study aims to establish international expert consensus recommendations on ESWT terminology, parameters, procedural considerations, contraindications and side effects in the application of ESWT to sports injuries. Methods A systematic literature search was performed on the use of ESWT for musculoskeletal and sports medicine injuries to identify potential panellists, followed by the development of a steering committee-led questionnaire. A three-stage, modified Delphi questionnaire was provided to a panel of 41 international clinical and research experts across 13 countries. Panellists had the opportunity to suggest edits to existing statements or recommend additional statements in Round 1. Consensus was defined as≥75% agreement. Results All 41 panellists completed Rounds 1, 2 and 3. Consensus was reached on 69/118 statements (58.5%), including recommendations on terminology and fundamental concepts, indications for use, procedural aspects for tendinopathy and bone pathologies, treatment correlations with imaging, periprocedural and postprocedural considerations, absolute and relative contraindications and potential side effects. Of the 49 statements that did not reach consensus, 17/49 (34.7%) were related to procedural aspects of bone pathology. Conclusion This international panel presents recommendations on ESWT terminology, indications and treatment considerations to guide ESWT use and decision-making by sports medicine clinicians. While our panel supported the use of ESWT in the treatment of bone pathologies, certain procedural aspects of ESWT specific to these injuries did not reach consensus and require further investigation.

Background: The lack of a standardized system for describing cell therapies acts as a barrier to advancement in clinical and basic research and practice. The aim of this study was to establish an international expert consensus on strategies to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The secondary aim was to develop a consensus among experts on the contents of a standardized tool for describing cell therapies. Methods: The need for expert consensus on strategies to improve cell therapy communication was confirmed at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/National Institutes of Health Optimizing Clinical Use of Biologics Symposium in 2018. A working group of 6 experts convened an international consensus process involving clinicians and basic scientists using validated Delphi methodology. This iterative process was used to define statements on communication of cell therapies and develop a standardized tool for describing cell therapies. Results: Thirty-four experts completed 3 rounds survey with use of the Delphi process. After 3 rounds, 27 statements relating to existing nomenclature, solutions to improve communication, ideal characteristics of a framework, mandatory elements of a new framework, and future work to facilitate application reached consensus with >80% agreement and <5% disagreement. Consensus was reached on the contents of a tool for improving standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. This tool, dubbed “DOSES,” is based on the reporting of 5 core items: donor (i.e., autologous, allogeneic, xenogeneic), origin of tissue, separation from other cell types/preparation method, exhibited cell characteristics associated with behavior, and the site of delivery. Conclusions: This study has established expert consensus on the communication of cell therapies. The DOSES tool has been developed to improve standardization and transparency in describing cell therapies. Clinical Relevance: The DOSES tool for describing cell therapies can be utilized by researchers, clinicians, regulators, and industry professionals to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The use of this tool may allow clinicians and patients to better understand the characteristics of current and future cell preparations.