4.6 Review

Are inflammatory cells increased in painful human tendinopathy? A systematic review

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 216-U105

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094754

关键词

-

资金

  1. Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit of National Institute for Health Research
  2. Arthritis Research UK
  3. Jean Shanks Foundation
  4. Orthopaedic Research UK
  5. Versus Arthritis [20506] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The role of inflammation in tendinopathy has historically been a subject of significant controversy. Our primary aim was to determine whether inflammatory cell numbers were increased in painful human tendinopathy versus healthy control tendons. Our secondary aim was to assess whether the inflammatory cells had been linked with symptoms or disease stage. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature using the PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines of the Medline database using specific search criteria. Only studies measuring inflammatory cells using specific markers in tissue from human patients with the clinical diagnosis of tendinopathy were included. Inclusion was agreed on by 2 independent researchers on review of abstracts or full-text using specific predetermined criteria. The search yielded 5 articles in total. Results There were increased numbers of macrophages (4 studies) and mast cells (3 studies) in tendinopathic versus healthy control tissues. One study demonstrated increased numbers of T cells in tendinopathic tissue versus healthy control tendons. There were reduced numbers of T cells (1 study), macrophages (2 studies) and mast cells (2 studies) in torn tendon versus intact tendinopathic tissue. Conclusions The existing evidence supports the hypothesis that increased numbers of inflammatory cells are present in pathological tendons. The lack of highquality quantitative studies in this area demonstrates a clear need for future research to better understand the role of inflammation in tendinopathy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据