Skip to main content
Download PDF

Developing a diagnostic framework for patients presenting with Exercise Induced Leg Pain (EILP): a scoping review

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research volume 16, Article number: 82 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Numerous conditions are grouped under the generic term exercise-induced leg pain (EILP), yet clear diagnostic guidelines are lacking. This scoping review was conducted to clarify the definition and diagnostic criteria of nine commonly occurring EILP conditions.

Methods

Three online databases were searched from inception to April 2022 for any English language original manuscripts identifying, describing, or assessing the clinical presentation and diagnostic criteria of the nine most common conditions that cause EILP. We included manuscripts considering all adults with any reported diagnostic criteria for EILP in any setting. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal tool. Condition definitions were identified and categorised during data charting. Twenty-five potential elements of the history, 24 symptoms, 41 physical signs, 21 investigative tools, and 26 overarching diagnostic criteria, were identified and coded as counts of recommendation per condition, alongside qualitative analysis of the clinical reasoning. Condition definitions were constructed with 11 standardised elements based on recent consensus exercises for other conditions.

Results

One hundred nineteen retained manuscripts, of which 18 studied multiple conditions, had a median quality of 2/5. A combination of the history, pain location, symptoms, physical findings, and investigative modalities were fundamental to identify each sub-diagnosis alongside excluding differentials. The details differed markedly for each sub-diagnosis. Fifty-nine manuscripts included data on chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) revealing exertional pain (83% history), dull aching pain (76% symptoms), absence of physical signs (78% physical findings) and elevated intercompartment pressure (93% investigative modality). Twenty-one manuscripts included data on medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS), revealing persistent pain upon discontinuation of activity (81% history), diffuse medial tibial pain (100% pain location), dull ache (86% symptoms), diffuse tenderness (95% physical findings) and MRI for exclusion of differentials (62% investigative modality). Similar analyses were performed for stress fractures (SF, n = 31), popliteal artery entrapment syndrome (PAES, n = 22), superficial peroneal nerve entrapment syndrome (SPNES, n = 15), lumbar radiculopathy (n = 7), accessory/low-lying soleus muscle syndrome (ALLSMS, n = 5), myofascial tears (n = 3), and McArdle’s syndrome (n = 2).

Conclusion

Initial diagnostic frameworks and definitions have been developed for each condition of the nine most common conditions that cause EILP, suitable for clinical consideration and consensus confirmation.

Peer Review reports

Background

Exercise-induced leg pain (EILP) is an umbrella term to describe pain in the leg induced by physical activities. It is commonly seen in young active individuals involved in competitive or endurance sports (including running, football, rugby, and dancing). The incidence of EILP among athletes has been reported to be between 12.8% and 82.4% [1,2,3,4]; however, it has not been reported for the general population [1,2,3]. The common element of EILP is a history of activity-induced leg pain, which commonly increases until activity cessation [5, 6]. In some cases, pain is also experienced at rest and manageable during activity. Apart from pain, other symptoms can include burning, cramping, swelling, muscle weakness, fatigue, malaise, paraesthesia, numbness, poikilothermia, and tightness [2, 7, 8].

There are more than 40 conditions (Additional file 1) that fall into the generic category of EILP, which requires clinicians to be vigilant when diagnosing patients presenting with exercise-related leg pain [2, 4,5,6, 9, 10]. The most common EILP entities fall into one of the following subdivisions [5]: (a) muscular origin pain, such as chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) and myofascial tears; (b) pain of bony origin, such as medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) and tibial stress fracture (TSF); (c) pain due to nerve entrapment or compression, such as superficial peroneal nerve entrapment syndrome (SPNES); (d) radicular pain or radiculopathy; (e) pain of vascular origin due to temporary compression of either an artery or a vein, such as popliteal artery entrapment syndrome (PAES); (f) muscle disorders, such as McArdle’s syndrome; and (g) accessory or low-lying soleus muscle syndrome (ALLSMS) (also known as ASM) [2, 4,5,6, 9, 10]. These nine specific EILP conditions (CECS, MTSS, tibial SF, SPNES, myofascial tears, radiculopathy, PAES, McArdle syndrome, & ALLSMS) were the focus of this scoping review.

A detailed and methodical clinical history, knowledge of the conditions, appropriate examination and anatomical knowledge are regarded as key to reaching an appropriate diagnosis, while remaining aware that some of the conditions have overlapping signs and symptoms.

Because of coexisting conditions, a lack of consensus on the diagnostic guidelines and limited diagnostic test accuracy, EILP subdiagnoses cannot be clearly established in many cases [5, 10]. Clinical examination or physical findings are variably helpful, with the exception of nerve- or bone-related pathology. Investigations or further investigative modalities are often essential to confirm the diagnosis [10]. It is essential to be able to differentiate between the causes of EILP among patients to reach the most appropriate diagnosis to construct an appropriate treatment and management plan [5, 10].

There is a copious and varied body of literature describing EILP-related conditions and their clinical presentation; however, there is limited guidance facilitating differentiation between even the more common conditions. This variation contributes to diagnostic confusion, variable care, and suboptimal outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to collate and evaluate the published diagnostic criteria of the nine most commonly occurring EILP conditions to provide clear guidance about differential diagnosis.

Following an introductory literature search [11] and discussions between the authors, the research question—‘What are the diagnostic criteria for patients with EILP?’—was formulated to reflect the scoping review population, concept, and context.

Methods

This scoping review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [12]. The methodological framework of this review is based on Arksey and O’Malley’s approach with modifications recommended by Levac et al., as well as the work of the Joanna Briggs Institute and previously published relevant scoping reviews [13,14,15,16,17]. The completed PRISMA-ScR Checklist is available (See Additional file 2) [12].

A scoping review was the most appropriate methodological approach to achieve this aim due to the iterative, exploratory methodology the topic needed [18,19,20] A scoping review was also viewed as ideal to clarify key concepts, characterise findings from the diverse literature and outline the range of available evidence [11, 14, 15].

Protocol and registration

The protocol was registered as an open-ended registration with Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4K27B) [21]. The plan was modified after searching three databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus), and the team decided not to search five databases, as we found three conclusive databases. Therefore, the protocol was modified on August 2022 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DBPJE) [22].

Eligibility criteria

 We included manuscripts considering adult people of any gender that contained a description of EILP diagnostic criteria in any format at any consultation in all health care settings. However, the diagnostic criteria did not need to be the focus of the manuscript to be included, i.e., if the recruitment involved detail of how a condition was screened for, or if in the introduction of a systematic review it was described, then that paper was included. There was no limitation on manuscript type. See Table 1 for the full inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Table 1 Eligibility criteria
Full size table

Information sources and search

Three online databases were searched from inception to April 2022 (i.e., PubMed, Embase, Scopus) for relevant manuscripts. The keywords and constructs used to execute each search systematically were determined based on a preliminary search [11, 23] of the existing relevant reviews [4, 5, 10, 24, 25] and in consultation with the team members. A list of search terms (conditions, exercise, anatomical location, outcomes, and exclusions) is provided in Table 2, and the full search strategy for each database is available (see Additional file 3). A decision was made to limit searches to the English language, guided and managed by the first author, and organised using the reference management software EndNote 20.

Table 2 Search terms
Full size table

Selection of sources of evidence

After deduplication using EndNote 20, two levels of screening were conducted. The titles and corresponding abstracts of all returned manuscripts were evaluated against the eligibility criteria using online Rayyan [26]. Second, full-text copies of all manuscripts included at the title and abstract screening stage were retrieved and screened to determine the initial study selection. Both stages were performed independently by three of the authors (FB, KG, CM), with each paper being screened by two authors. Any disagreement over the eligibility of a particular manuscript was resolved through discussion among the team to determine final manuscript selection meeting the eligibility criteria. If an agreement was not reached, a fourth author was consulted. Further searching of reference lists of the included full-text manuscripts and citations of these were explored to identify additional relevant manuscripts not returned in the primary search and to ensure that the search strategy was capturing relevant manuscripts [12,13,14].

Data charting

A customised coded Excel sheet was designed to collate the charted data in a consistent format (Additional file 4). Following an initial discussion and brief exploration of the returned manuscripts, the main headers were chosen: i) definition of the condition, ii) anatomical location, iii) prevalence and incidence, iv) history, v) symptoms, vi) physical findings, vii) aggravating activity, viii) diagnostic criteria used within the literature, ix) investigative tools used, and x) therapeutic approaches undertaken and their efficacy. Within each of these main headings, subheadings were iteratively developed to classify the approaches described in each manuscript. Details of the population demographics, such as age and sex, were included wherever reported, alongside year of publication, author name, and study design [5, 6]. Three authors charted data from the first 10 manuscripts independently to determine whether their approach to the charting process was consistent [13, 27]. The full data charting process was conducted by one author (FB) for consistency, while two other authors (KG and CM) undertook approximately 50% each, so that data from each paper were checked by at least two reviewers.

Quality assessment

The methodological quality of retained manuscripts was evaluated by three authors (FB, KG and CM) using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018 Version [28]. The MMAT measures five various methodological classifications, enabling use across different study designs, and is valid, reliable, and efficient [28, 29]. Inconsistencies in the MMAT scoring between the authors were resolved by agreement between them and accessing another author as needed.

Results synthesis

Condition definitions

In addition to the synthesis of reported diagnostic approaches, definitions for the nine conditions were recorded from each included manuscript, and a single definition for each was formulated by first identifying the most common definitions and their sources. The literature was searched to construct operational definitions to provide in the review. The content was then cross-referenced to a standardised structure derived from analysis of all definitions and consideration of previous reports of consensus definitions for chronic conditions [30]. The domains included [condition name], causing [selection of symptoms/impairments including frequency and severity], for at least [minimum duration], at [location], resulting in [disability], in [population], for [x duration], when [exercise relationship], because [proposed mechanism], confirmed by [y and z test(s)], and [other conditions] particularly need to be excluded.

Data coding and synthesis of main domains

Based on discussions among the study team and reviewing relevant conceptual and methodological articles [15,16,17, 31, 32], data were coded.

The five main domains identified initially within the data charting process were history, symptoms, physical findings, investigations and overarching diagnostic criteria. The number of manuscripts that reported the use of an approach within the diagnosis was coded and counted under each subdomain element. Synthesis of reporting across manuscripts was undertaken for each of the nine EILP-related conditions and is presented as the percentage of manuscripts reporting a diagnosis approach within the number of manuscripts reporting a diagnosis for the specific EILP diagnosis. As such, the total number of manuscripts differed across injuries, and a single manuscript might include data on multiple conditions.

The synthesised data were presented in condition-specific graphs, which show the proportion of manuscripts reporting a given diagnostic criterion. Data were combined for the nine conditions into a separate figure for each of the five main domains charted (all details are available in Additional file 4).

Results

Selection of sources of evidence

The search yielded 5022 manuscripts after deduplication. After the title and abstract screening stage, 303 manuscripts were reviewed in full. Of these 303 manuscripts, 119 were retained, and 184 were excluded because they did not meet the eligibility criteria as outlined in Fig. 1. Eleven of the full text articles were not available through online referral sources, and the authors did not respond to requests to share the full text.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flow chart

Full size image

Characteristics of sources of evidence

A summary of the types of manuscripts included in this review is shown in Table 3. Noncomparative studies including opinion pieces/narrative reviews accounted for 45.4% of the included manuscripts [4, 6, 33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84], case reports (22%) [7, 85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109], and case series studies (17%) [110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129]. Five percent of the included manuscripts were systematic reviews [5, 130,131,132,133,134]. Case control studies accounted for 2.5% [135,136,137], as well as retrospective case series studies (2.5%) [24, 138, 139]. Cross-sectional studies accounted for 2.5% [140,141,142]. Experimental quantitative trials accounted for 2.5% (randomised and nonrandomised controlled trials) [143,144,145]. In all, 0.8% of the manuscripts were observational cohort studies [146].

Table 3 Type of manuscripts included and evidence level of different study types
Full size table

Quality assessment

The median quality of the included manuscripts was 0.4, with a mean of 2.01 (IQR = 3/0–3) using the MMAT (for details, see Additional file 5). Most of the nonsystematic reviews and opinion pieces/narrative reviews were rated as poor to moderate quality (0–1 scores), while case-series studies, case control studies, and experimental quantitative trials had higher MMAT scores (3–4 scores).

Data extraction

Additional file 4 presents the completed data charting table and the individual charted data from each resource of evidence.

Synthesis of results

Condition definitions

Synthesised definitions of the nine most common conditions causing EILP are provided in Table 4. Not all included manuscripts provide a specific definition of the involved condition, with 101 manuscripts describing only one condition, while 18 described more than one condition. Additionally, none of the included manuscripts defined myofascial tears, and the definition was synthesised from other literature resources. The purpose of this work was to produce definitions based on the current literature to represent current thinking but in a format suitable to inform later consensus work on the definitions.

Table 4 Definitions of the nine most common EILP conditions
Full size table

Synthesis of main domains and diagnostic criteria

The results synthesis displays the frequency of each diagnostic element within the main domains for all conditions individually. The elements within the domains with the highest frequency for a certain condition are the ones reported the most within the included manuscripts; lower frequencies indicate that the element is less frequently reported within the manuscripts for diagnosing that condition.

Twenty-five potential subdomains/elements for history, 24 for symptoms, 41 for physical signs, and 21 for investigative tools were identified within the retained manuscripts. The fifth main domain identified was the overarching diagnostic criteria, some of which reproduced data in the other four main domains but had been highlighted by manuscript authors.

History domain

The most reported elements of the medical history indicating CECS were exertional pain, gradual onset during the exercise, and the relief of pain within a few minutes after discontinuing the activity (frequency = 83%, 80%, and 76% of papers, respectively), as shown in Fig. 2. Pain relief soon after activity cessation appeared to be specific to CECS cases, with it only minimally being reported as a diagnostic tool for PAES, SPNES, tibial SF and MTSS (23%, 13%, 3%, and 5%, respectively). The most reported history elements for MTSS were diffuse pain spread within the distal two-thirds of the tibia, pain persistence from a few hours to days, and gradual symptom onset during activity (100%, 81%, 76%, respectively). The first two elements were specific to the MTSS presentation pattern. However, for tibial stress fracture, local pain spread (< 5 cm), gradual onset of pain during exercise, and exertional pain were reported to be the history pattern in 74%, 55%, and 48% of patients, respectively. Localised pain was specific to tibial stress fractures (74%).

There were no history elements unique for SPNES and radiculopathy, as the main reported elements for SPNES were exertional pain, no medical history related, and gradual pain onset (60%, 47%, 40%, respectively), while the most common elements for radiculopathy were no prior medical history, nonexertional pain, and pain during rest (57%, 28.6%, 28.6%, respectively). For PAES, the typical elements were exertional pain type, absence of related medical history, and gradual onset during activity (77%, 50%, and 46%, respectively). The most frequent history elements for myofascial tears were direct/indirect trauma, nonexertional pain, and pain at rest (100%, 67%, 33%, respectively), with the history of trauma being particular to this condition. Cases of McArdle’s syndrome were found to have a well-defined pattern; however, the elements were not particular to this syndrome, including exercise intolerance, exertional pain and pain relieved by rest (100%, 100%, and 50%, respectively). ALLSMS history was unclear, with the reported elements of swelling after exercising, pain being relieved by rest and exertional pain ranging from 20%-60%.

Fig. 2
figure 2

This bar chart details the frequency with which each of the 25 most common elements of the patient’s history were reported as being relevant to each condition. Column headers indicate the condition and the number of relevant manuscripts in brackets. CECS = chronic exertional compartment syndrome, MTSS = medial tibial stress syndrome, tibial SF = tibial stress fracture, SPNES = superficial peroneal nerve entrapment syndrome, PAES = popliteal artery entrapment syndrome, ALLSMS = accessory/low-lying soleus muscle syndrome. Px = Pain. Hx = History

Full size image

Symptoms domain

The most reported symptoms are shown in Fig. 3, with a dull ache, tightness, and paraesthesia being the main symptoms for CECS (76%, 54%, and 44% respectively). A dull ache was also the main symptom reported for MTSS and tibial stress fracture (86% and 77%, respectively). However, tibial stress fracture also presented with sharp pain in some (23%) patients. Neurological symptoms, including numbness, tingling, and weakness (67%, 40%, 40% respectively), were the most common indications for SPNES. Myofascial tears can present with different types of pain (dull achy 67%, radiating 67%, and sharp 33%), while other commonly reported symptoms include altered sensation and tenderness after exercising (both 33%). The presence of low back pain (LBP), sharp pain, and radiating pain could be an indicator of radiculopathy, all of which returned 100%. The highly reported symptoms for PAES were dull ache, intermittent claudication, and paraesthesia (59%, 50%, 41%, respectively). LBP and intermittent claudication (100% and 50%, respectively) were specific symptoms for radiculopathy and PAES, respectively. The most specific reported symptoms for McArdle’s syndrome were early fatigue, myalgia, and weakness (100%, 50%, and 50%, respectively). ALLSMS reports included dull aching, burning, and tenderness (40%, 40%, 20%, respectively); however, it could also present with no symptoms (20%).

Fig. 3
figure 3

This bar chart details the frequency with which each of the 24 most common elements of the patient’s symptoms were reported as being relevant to each condition. Column headers indicate the condition and the number of relevant manuscripts in brackets. CECS = chronic exertional compartment syndrome, MTSS = medial tibial stress syndrome, tibial SF = tibial stress fracture, SPNES = superficial peroneal nerve entrapment syndrome, PAES = popliteal artery entrapment syndrome, ALLSMS = accessory/low-lying soleus muscle syndrome. Px = Pain. LBP = low back pain

Full size image

Findings of the physical examination procedures domain

Physical examination for patients with EILP was typically categorised as either observation, palpation, range of motion (ROM), neurological testing, or special tests. Therefore, Fig. 4 is presented to illustrate the most common physical findings used to establish a diagnosis. Interestingly, the absence of physical findings at rest was most reported for CECS (78%), followed by altered sensation and tenderness after exercising (46% and 41%, respectively). Diffuse tenderness on palpation presented in more than 95% of MTSS literature but absent in all others was specific for MTSS. Other findings, such as weakness and swelling, were reported with a lower frequency for MTSS (both 14.3%). The presence of local tenderness, a positive tuning fork and a hopping test were reported as being indicative of a tibial stress fracture (77%, 65%, and 48%, respectively). The main reported physical findings for SPNES were weakness, positive Tinel’s test, and altered sensation (67%, 53%, and 47%, respectively). The most reported findings for radiculopathy were weakness, positive slump test, femoral stretch, and straight leg raise, all of which returned 100%. Signs of swelling, tenderness after exercise and tense muscle compartment (67%) were the most common findings of myofascial tears. The most reported findings for PAES were reduced pulses, positional loss of pulses using arterial Doppler ultrasonography, and the absence of signs while resting (68%, 59%, 50%, respectively). Weakness was the only physical finding reported for McArdle’s syndrome, as well as the absence of signs during rest (100% and 50%, respectively). The appearance of a soft tissue mass in the ankle region, alongside tenderness after exercising, and pain during ankle plantar flexion (60%, 60%, 20%, respectively) were the main findings indicating ALLSMS.

Fig. 4
figure 4

This bar chart details the frequency with which each of the 41 most common elements of the patient’s physical findings were reported as being relevant to each condition. Column headers indicate the condition and the number of relevant manuscripts in brackets. CECS = chronic exertional compartment syndrome, MTSS = medial tibial stress syndrome, tibial SF = tibial stress fracture, SPNES = superficial peroneal nerve entrapment syndrome, PAES = popliteal artery entrapment syndrome, ALLSMS = accessory/low-lying soleus muscle syndrome. Px = Pain. ROM = Range of motion

Full size image

Further investigations domain

Further investigative modalities, as displayed in Fig. 5, were used chiefly as the concluding step in the diagnostic process as positive or negative confirmation of the clinical diagnosis. MRI was frequently used for all conditions to confirm a particular diagnosis (ALLSMS 80%, tibial SF 78%, radiculopathy 71%, myofascial tears 66%, PAES 50%, SPNES 20%), or to rule out other pathologies (MTSS 62%, CECS 31%), except for the absence of its use as a diagnostic tool for McArdle’s. Conversely, McArdle’s diagnosis was reported to be confirmed by more invasive tastings, i.e., genetic screening, blood test, and biopsy (100%, 50%, and 50%, respectively). The use of dynamic intracompartment pressure (ICP) tests returned a 66% frequency for CECS, with low to no returns for the others. Further measurement of the ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) was only used to confirm cases of PAES (31%) alongside the use of some imaging modalities (ultrasonography 68%, MRI 50%, CT angiogram 50%) after provoking symptoms with exercises and manoeuvres as determined by the history. The diagnostic process of stress fractures has been reported to be based on the use of imaging modalities, such as X-ray, MRI, and bone scan (87%, 87%, 54%, respectively). In addition, X-ray can be a useful indication of the presence of ALLSMS (20%), and ultrasound scans can reveal myofascial tears (66%). Moreover, nerve conduction studies could assist in the diagnosis of radiculopathy and SPNES (71% and 53%, respectively).

Fig. 5
figure 5

This bar chart details the frequency with which each of the 21 most common elements of the further investigation’s modalities were reported as being relevant to each condition. Column headers indicate the condition and the number of relevant manuscripts in brackets. CECS = chronic exertional compartment syndrome, MTSS = medial tibial stress syndrome, tibial SF = tibial stress fracture, SPNES = superficial peroneal nerve entrapment syndrome, PAES = popliteal artery entrapment syndrome, ALLSMS = accessory/low-lying soleus muscle syndrome. CT = computed tomography scan. USS = Ultrasound scan. MRI = Magnetic resonance imaging. ABPI = Ankle brachial pressure index. ICP = Dynamic intracompartment pressure

Full size image

Diagnostic criteria

The overall diagnostic criteria for these nine conditions are presented in Fig. 6, which represents the frequency of each of the 26 most common diagnostic criteria reported for each of the conditions, including those reported in the previous four domains. In other words, the resultant overarching diagnostic criteria for these nine conditions consist of 24 criteria reported in the included manuscripts as individual criteria plus the other four domain elements (history, symptoms, physical findings, further investigations).

Fig. 6
figure 6

This bar chart details the frequency with which each of the 26 most common diagnostic criteria were reported as being relevant to each condition. Column headers indicate the condition and the number of relevant manuscripts in brackets.CECS = chronic exertional compartment syndrome, MTSS = medial tibial stress syndrome, tibial SF = tibial stress fracture, SPNES = superficial peroneal nerve entrapment syndrome, PAES = popliteal artery entrapment syndrome, ALLSMS = accessory/low-lying soleus muscle syndrome. CK = Creatine kinase. So2 = Oxygen saturation. NIRS = Near-infrared spectrometry. ABPI = Ankle brachial pressure index. ICP = Dynamic intracompartment pressure. DTR = Deep tendon reflex. Hx = History

Full size image

Discussion

This comprehensive scoping review details the definitions and key diagnostic criteria for the nine most common conditions that cause EILP based on the literature. The findings are collated and evaluated by condition.

Single definitions for each of the nine conditions were synthesised by identifying the most common definitions and their sources within the literature and then checked according to a standardised domain. These are qualitative outputs of the data synthesis, using criteria from the clinical case definition of post-COVID-19 syndrome in a previous Delphi consensus [30]. A Delphi study of healthcare professionals and patients was conducted in a three-stage process to define core health-related domains for tendinopathy, and they found that nine core domains for tendon research should guide the reporting of outcomes in clinical trials [157, 158]. This imposes the importance of having clear definitions domains for such clinical conditions. The diversity in definition between manuscripts was notable, with some manuscripts not providing any definition and most lacking important details (including frequency, least, duration, mechanism) that would enable comparison between studies and evidence synthesis. By combining all of these in a standardised structure, we aim to provide a clear foundation for promoting discussions in the future and use of these synthesised definitions for further consensus processes.

The diagnosis of CECS revolved primarily around the pain pattern of the relief within a few minutes after discontinuing the activity, the absence of physical findings when not exercising and invasive ICP measuring procedure. Elevated ICP is proposed to be a diagnostic tool for CECS within the results. This was accepted by Pedowitz et al., who demonstrated elevated values in the affected compartments and a resting pressure greater than 15 mmHg and 5 min postexercise pressures greater than 20 mmHg [139]. However, current studies outlining these criteria have no high-level evidence. Therefore, current ICP pressure criteria for CECS diagnosis are consequently unreliable, and emphasis should remain on a clear history [81, 159], which was also presented within this review [81, 159].

The diagnosis of MTSS was based mainly on a history of persistent, cumulative pain that does not immediately cease after stopping activity and may persist between a few hours and a few days, as reported in 81% of the papers. This is accompanied by diffuse tenderness of the tibial periosteum during physical examination (95% reporting frequency). Imaging, mainly MRI, was also used, albeit recommended in only 62% of manuscripts to confirm MTSS in severe cases and to exclude other conditions [5, 140, 160,161,162].

For tibial stress fracture, diagnosis is first based on a history of gradual onset of focal pain during exercise, which matches the presence of localised pain on palpation and positive imaging findings featured in all manuscripts. Other specific tests have been used and reported to be useful in this review, for example, the hop test or fulcrum test. However, the hop test was found to be 100% sensitive and 45% specific for diagnosing medial tibial stress fracture, whereas the fulcrum test was not proposed to be statistically specific and sensitive for the diagnosis of medial tibial stress fracture [38, 110]. Therefore, the history, palpation and imaging modalities are consistent, and core elements are needed to detect stress fracture [38, 110, 163, 164].

The key distinctive element for the diagnosis of PAES was suspicion from the history of intermittent claudication type of pain, positional loss of pulse in the tibialis posterior artery during physical examination, and the absence of pain while resting. Sinha et al. identified that provocation Doppler ultrasonography, ankle brachial pressure index measurement, and MRI & MR angiography have 94% and 90% sensitivity for diagnosing PAES [165]. However, these were only stipulated in ~ 50% of the relevant manuscripts, suggesting that there is inconsistency of diagnostic approaches that merits further study.

The diagnosis of SPNES was based mainly on a history of nonspecific exertional neurological type of pain over the anterior compartment, accompanied by weakness, positive Tinel’s test, and altered sensation. Nerve conduction studies and electromyography were not found to be very useful unless pre- and postexercise symptom provocation tests were employed. MRI could be useful to demonstrate anatomical relations causing nerve compression [10, 166].

Lumbar radiculopathy diagnosis revolves primarily around the history of radiating pain, worsening of pain by coughing, bending, or sitting, neurological symptoms, and altered neurological findings during special testing, supporting the literature [154, 167]. However, this review found that nonexertional pain was relatively common in radiculopathy. This anomaly shows that the onset of pain may be important for radiculopathy diagnosis and that radicular pain can occur without exercise, unlike the other conditions, which are primarily exertional in nature, although pain may linger after exertion for a while in conditions such as MTSS. Radiculopathy diagnosis is mainly confirmed by imaging modalities, particularly MRI, as reported in ~ 70% of the relevant manuscripts.

For myofascial tears, the diagnostic criteria reported within this review are quite reflective of the literature (history of traumatic onset and sharp pain) [168, 169]. However, there was conspicuously little literature for this condition, despite it being a more frequent cause of EILP than other muscle/myofascial pathologies, which led to inconsistencies in these findings. This clearly indicates a lack of a diagnostic guide for the condition. Further research is required to establish a more reliable diagnostic approach for myofascial tears. This gap within the literature may clarify the unexpected dominant diagnostic tool for the condition according to the scoping review: imaging modalities. However, these factors play a role in the diagnosis of all conditions; therefore, they are not primary for the diagnostic procedure.

The key distinctive element for the diagnosis of McArdle’s syndrome is genetic PYGM testing and blood screening (including serum creatine kinase and genetic testing), giving it a clearly different diagnostic approach to the rest of the EILP conditions and is well represented in this review as expected. It was also characterised by early fatigue and myalgia due to genetic abnormalities. Lucia et al. reported that the diagnosis is usually confirmed by muscle biopsy, which shows a negative histochemical reaction for myophosphorylase and no myophosphorylase activity [57]. McArdle’s syndrome placed a large importance on further investigations for pathogenic mutations and the presence of certain symptoms and signs, including exercise intolerance and fixed weakness (all of which were returned within 100% of the literature).

For ALLSMS, diagnosis relied heavily on the absence of traumatic history, the lack of major presenting symptoms and the presence of anatomical variation on examination with (20%) return. Imaging modalities were recommended to confirm the diagnosis. This was a similar diagnostic approach to the literature, with physical findings revealing an extra muscle or low-lying muscle that can be clearly identified by imaging [102]. Accessory and low-lying soleus muscles are present as normal anatomical variations in many asymptomatic subjects. A significant increase in intensity and exercise workload, in some cases, may lead to pain and disability. These findings are also in agreement with the literature [170].

For each condition, a combination of key aspects of the history, physical findings, and further investigative modalities were fundamental to reach a diagnostic conclusion and formulate a diagnosis. This diagnostic framework will be useful for clinicians dealing with these conditions to improve differential diagnosis and reduce diagnostic variability. These findings must, however, be treated with caution, as study quality is low. Therefore, the diagnostic procedure will be easier when there are established diagnostic guidelines.

Limitations of the literature

There was a paucity of literature for some of the included conditions (myofascial tears, McArdle’s syndrome, ALLSMS), as indicated by the low numbers of returns for these conditions. There was a lack of detailed diagnostic studies reporting sensitivity and specificity for any condition and a lack of longitudinal studies and trials, meaning that the strength of our conclusions is limited. Considering the level of evidence for the included manuscripts, the median is four, which indicates that most of the included manuscripts were of low quality. Additionally, there was a lack of consensus on definitions, which we hope our review can facilitate. Moreover, the prevalence of these conditions is not clear within the literature; therefore, there is a need for better epidemiological studies. Finally, the literature does not fully reflect clinical practice, as many patients present with an unclear picture; therefore, a consideration of how to deal with atypical presentations is an important consideration for future research that is not currently represented in the literature.

Limitations of the review

There was only a partial critical appraisal (quality assessment, not risk of bias) of sources conducted due to the type of review. However, the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of the included manuscripts. Moreover, the authorship of the included manuscripts was not considered within this review, and this could be quite influential for the number of results due to the weight of each manuscript, especially where the same author has written multiple papers using the same diagnostic criteria. In addition, the domains we used for defining the conditions do not include the patient’s description and patient voice, and this may be worth considering in future work [157, 158]. Moreover, the data included in this review did not compare the evidence of different diagnostic modalities to assist in the diagnosis.

Conclusion

In this scoping review, we developed definitions with a standardised structure and propose an initial diagnostic framework for nine common EILP sub-conditions. Patient history, anatomical symptom location, physical findings and investigative modalities represent crucial diagnostic elements. Many of the findings are consistent across the literature, but others are less so—highlighting both the inconsistencies between different clinical groups’ diagnostic approach to EILP and the need for efforts to build consensus. Notwithstanding the overlapping symptoms, primary patterns of presentation vary greatly between the conditions, and clinicians should be able to differentiate using the findings in this scoping review. All the conditions reported the necessity to exclude other differentials, reinforcing the view that EILP diagnosis is often one of exclusion. Adoption of this diagnostic framework and application of the associated definitions should help reduce care variability, improve EILP diagnosis and therefore improve management and outcome.

Future research recommendations

  1. 1.

    Consensus studies on the resulting definitions and diagnostic criteria could be a potential for future research. We are hopeful that at the end of the current 4-phase study (SR is phase 1), we will have guidelines on diagnostic criteria for EILP.

  2. 2.

    Prevalence of the various conditions needs to be addressed.

  3. 3.

    Intra-compartment pressure measurement in supporting the diagnosis of CECS requires a particular study.

  4. 4.

    Use of dynamic MRI & MRA in the assessment of PAES needs evaluation.

References

  1. Orava S, Puranen J. Athletes’ leg pains. Br J Sports Med. 1979;13(3):92–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rajasekaran S, Kvinlaug K, Finnoff JT. Exertional leg pain in the athlete. PM R. 2012;4(12):985–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.10.002.

  3. Taunton JE, Ryan MB, Clement DB, McKenzie DC, Lloyd-Smith DR, Zumbo BD. A retrospective case-control analysis of 2002 running injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2002;36(2):95–101. Available from: http://bjsm.bmj.com/. [Cited 2021 Sep 1].

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonasia DE, Rosso F, Cottino U, Rossi R. Exercise-induced leg pain. Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2015;2(3):73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmart.2015.03.003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lohrer H, Malliaropoulos N, Korakakis V, Padhiar N. Exercise-induced leg pain in athletes: diagnostic, assessment, and management strategies. Phys Sportsmed. 2019;47(1):47–59.

  6. Rajasekaran S, Finnoff JT. Exertional Leg Pain. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2016;27(1):91–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosenthal MD, Hawkes N, Garbrecht JD. Popliteal Artery Entrapment Syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020;50(9):531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Williams EH, Dellon AL. Intraseptal superficial peroneal nerve. Microsurgery. 2007;27(5):477–80. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inwards/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-34547870185&doi=10.1002%2Fmicr.20390&partnerID=40&md5=d2173c41cd6442412d6f1f2ba283384a.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Padhiar N, Malliaropoulos N, Lohrer H. Exercise-induced leg pain in sport. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(24):1546–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Biber Brewer R, Gregory AJM. Chronic lower leg pain in athletes: a guide for the differential diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment. Sports Health. 2012;4(2):121–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Peter M, Godfrey M Christina, Mcinerney P SB. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. Joanne Briggs Institute. 2015;(February 2016):1–24.

  14. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Levac D, Colquhoun H OK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010; 5:69. 2010;1–18.

  16. Truong LK, Mosewich AD, Holt CJ, Le CY, Miciak M, Whittaker JL. Psychological, social and contextual factors across recovery stages following a sport-related knee injury: a scoping review. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(19):1149–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Griffin SA, Panagodage Perera NK, Murray A, Hartley C, Fawkner SG, P T Kemp S, et al. The relationships between rugby union, and health and well-being: A scoping review. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55(6):319–26.

  18. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zachary M, Polloclk D, Khalil H, Alexander L, Mclnerney PM, Godfrey C, et al. What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. 2022. p. 950–2.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.

  21. Bosnina F, Padhiar N, Miller S, Girotra K, Massoura C, Morrissey. D. Developing a framework for the diagnostic criteria of patients with Exercise Induced Leg Pain (EILP): a scoping review. Open Science Framework. 2022;15(2):1–23. Available from: https://osf.io/4k27b

  22. Bosnina F, Padhiar N, Miller S, Girotra K, Massoura C, Morrissey D. Developing a framework for the diagnostic criteria of patients with Exercise Induced Leg Pain (EILP): A scoping review protocol. 2022.

  23. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. de Bruijn JA, van Zantvoort APM, van Klaveren D, Winkes MB, van der Cruijsen-Raaijmakers M, Hoogeveen AR, et al. Factors predicting lower leg chronic exertional compartment syndrome in a large population. Int J Sports Med. 2018;39(1):58–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vogels S, Ritchie ED, van Dongen TTCF, Scheltinga MRM, Zimmermann WO, Hoencamp R. Systematic review of outcome parameters following treatment of chronic exertional compartment syndrome in the lower leg. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30(10):1827–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson N, Phillips M. Rayyan for systematic reviews. J Electron Resour Librariansh. 2018;30(1):46–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Baldini Soares C, Khalil H PD. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual, JBI, 2017. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. Available from: https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/3283910770/Chapter+11%3A+Scoping+reviews.

  28. Hong QN, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Pluye P. Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(3):459–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12884.

  29. Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(1):47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Soriano JB, Murthy S, Marshall JC, Relan P, Diaz JV. A clinical case definition of post-COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(4):e102–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00703-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sargeant JM, O’Connor AM. Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis: applications in veterinary medicine. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7(January):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pollock D, Tricco AC, Peters MDJ, Mclnerney PA, Khalil H, Godfrey CM, et al. Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol and 12 The Scottish Centre for Evidence-based Multiprofessional Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Aberdeen, Great Britain. Vol. 20, JBI Evid Synth. 2022. Available from: https://jbi.global/

  33. Miller TL, Backs R, Vaccaro PS. Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome: a diagnostic and treatment enigma for orthopaedic surgeons. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021;29(17):e834–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Winkes M, van Eerten P, Scheltinga M. Deep posterior chronic exertional compartment syndrome as a cause of leg pain. Unfallchirurg. 2020;123(Suppl 1):3–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Velasco TO, Leggit JC. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome: a clinical update. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2020;19(9):347–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nwakibu U, Schwarzman G, Zimmermann WO, Hutchinson MR. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the leg management is changing: where are we and where are we going? Curr Sports Med Rep. 2020;19(10):438–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. de Bruijn J, Winkes M, van Eerten P, Scheltinga M. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome as a cause of anterolateral leg pain. Unfallchirurg. 2019;2020(123):8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Feldman JJ, Bowman EN, Phillips BB, Weinlein JC. Tibial Stress Fractures in Athletes. Orthop Clin North Am. 2016;47(4):733–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2016.05.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Braver RT. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2016;33(2):219–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Burrus MT, Werner BC, Starman JS, Gwathmey FW, Carson EW, Wilder RP, et al. Chronic leg pain in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(6):1538–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pegrum J, Crisp T, Padhiar N, Flynn J. The pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of stress fractures in postmenopausal women. Physician and Sportsmedicine. 2012;40(3):32–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Van Boxem K, Cheng J, Patijn J, van Kleef M, Lataster A, Mekhail N, et al. 11. Lumbosacral radicular pain. Pain Pract. 2010;10(4):339–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Harrast MA, Colonno D. Stress fractures in runners. Clin Sports Med. 2010;29(3):399–416.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fredericson M, Jennings F, Beaulieu C, Matheson GO. Stress fractures in athletes. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;17(5):309–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Englund J. Chronic compartment syndrome: tips on recognising and treating. J Fam Pract. 2005;64(12):599–603.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bong MR, Polatsch DB, Jazrawi LM, Rokito AS. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome: diagnosis and management. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2005;62(3–4):77–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Peris P. Stress fractures. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2003;17(6):1043–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Couture CJ, Karlson KA. Tibial stress injuries: decisive diagnosis and treatment of “shin splints.” Phys Sportsmed. 2002;30(6):29–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Korkola M, Amendola A. Exercise-Induced Leg Pain: Sifting Through a Broad Differential. Physician and Sportsmedicine [Internet]. 2001;29(6):35–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Boden BP, Osbahr DC. High-risk stress fractures: evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2000;8(6):344–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Touliopolous S, Hershman EB. Lower leg pain. Diagnosis and treatment of compartment syndromes and other pain syndromes of the leg. Sports Med. 1999;27(3):193–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Schepsis AA, Lynch G. Exertional compartment syndromes of the lower extremity. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 1996;8(2):143–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Reneman RS. The anterior and the lateral compartmental syndrome of the leg due to intensive use of muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;113:69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hutchinson MR, Ireland ML. Common compartment syndromes in athletes. Treat Rehabil Sports Med. 1994;17(3):200–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Brukner P, Bennell K. Stress fractures in female athletes. Diagnosis, management and rehabilitation. Sports Med. 1997;24(6):419–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Neslon BJ, Arciero RA. Stress fractures in the female athlete. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2002;4(6):323–8.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Lucia A, Nogales-Gadea G, Pérez M, Martín MA, Andreu AL, Arenas J. McArdle disease: What do neurologists need to know? Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2008;4(10):568–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Brennan FH, Kane SF. Diagnosis, treatment options, and rehabilitation of chronic lower leg exertional compartment syndrome. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2003;2(5):247–50. https://doi.org/10.1249/00149619-200310000-00003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Moeyersoons JP, Martens M. Chronic compartment syndrome: diagnosis and management. Acta Orthop Belg. 1992;58(1):23–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hameed M, Coupland A, Davies AH. Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome: an approach to diagnosis and management. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(16):1073–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Padhiar N, King JB. Exercise induced leg pain: chronic compartment syndrome. Is the increase in intracompartment pressure exercise specific? Br J Sports Med. 1997;31:353.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Mukish P, Reybet-Degat PY, Demangel A, Trouilloud P, Baulot E. Accessory soleus muscle: a difficult diagnosis: a case report and a review of the literature. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 1999;22(SUPPL. 1):610–2.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Young AJ, McAllister DR. Evaluation and treatment of tibial stress fractures. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25(1):117–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ross DG. Chronic compartment syndrome. Orthopaedic Nurs. 1996;15(3):23–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Winters M. The diagnosis and management of medial tibial stress syndrome: an evidence update. Unfallchirurg. 2020;123(Suppl 1):15–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Wuellner JC, Nathe CD, Kreulen CD, Burnham KJ, Giza E. Chronic Exertional Compartment Syndrome: The Athleteʼs Claudication. Oper Tech Sports Med. 2017;25(2):52–8. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.otsm.2017.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Cosculluela PE, McCulloch PC. Anterior Tibial Stress Fractures: Intramedullary Nail vs Anterior Tension Band Plating. Oper Tech Sports Med. 2017;25(2):67–74. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.otsm.2017.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Joy SM, Raudales R. Popliteal Artery Entrapment Syndrome. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2015;14(5):364–7. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inwards/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84941286577&doi=10.1249%2FJSR.0000000000000199&partnerID=40&md5=8f16ae3672f851e011322b4559180c24.

  69. Flick D, Flick R. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome testing. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2015;14(5):380–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Williamson BL, Arthur CHC. Shin-splints: common exercise-related syndromes affecting the lower leg. J R Nav Med Serv. 2014;100(3):272–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Dunn JC, Waterman BR. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the leg in the military. Clin Sports Med. 2014;33(4):693–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Craig A. Entrapment neuropathies of the lower extremity. PM and R. 2013;5(5 SUPPL.):31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Murray MC, Heckman MM. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome: diagnostic techniques and management. Tech Orthop. 2012;27(1):75–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Murdock M, Murdoch MM. Compartment syndrome: a review of the literature. Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2012;29(2):301–10, viii.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Patel DS, Roth M, Kapil N. Stress fractures: Diagnosis, Treatment, and prevention. Am Fam Physician. 2011;83(1):39–46. Available from: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L361808068&from=export.

  76. Wilder RP, Magrum E. Exertional compartment syndrome. Clin Sports Med. 2010;29(3):429–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. McDonald S, Bearcroft P. Compartment syndromes. Semin Musculoskeletal Radiol. 2010;14(2):236–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Gill CS, Halstead ME, Matava MJ. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the leg in athletes: evaluation and management. Phys Sportsmed. 2010;38(2):126–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Pell 4th. RF, Khanuja HS, Cooley GR. Leg pain in the running athlete. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(6):396–404. Available from: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L39701583&from=export.

  80. Stager A, Clement D. Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome. Sports Med. 1999;28(1):61–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Styf J. Chronic exercise-induced pain in the anterior aspect of the lower leg. An overview of diagnosis. Sports Med. 1989;7(5):331–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Detmer DE. Chronic shin splints. Classification and management of medial tibial stress syndrome. Sports Med. 1986;3(6):436–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Leach RE, Zohn DA, Stryker WS. Anterior tibial compartment syndrome due to strenuous exercise. Mil Med. 1964;129(7):610–3. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/129.7.610.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. George CA, Hutchinson MR. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Clin Sports Med. 2012;31(2):307–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Al-Tayef TA, Rziki A, Rasras H, el Mahi O, Benzirar A. Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome: a case report with literature review. Pan Afr Med J. 2021;39:80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Finnoff JT, Johnson W. Ultrasound-guided fasciotomy for chronic exertional compartment syndrome: a case report. Clin J Sport Med. 2020;30(6):e231–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Kokalj J, Majstorović M. Bilateral Distal Tibial Stress Fracture in a Triathlete. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2019;86(2):156–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Drigny J, Reboursière E, Desvergée A, Ruet A, Hulet C. Concurrent exertional compartment syndrome and functional popliteal artery entrapment syndrome: a case report. PM R. 2019;11(6):669–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Henry HT, Szolomayer LK, Sumpio BE, Sutton KM. Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome: bilateral lower extremity involvement. Orthopedics. 2018;41(2):e295–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Carneiro Júnior FCF, Carrijo ENDA, Araújo ST, Nakano LCU, de Amorim JE, Cacione DG. Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome: a case report and review of the literature. Am J Case Rep. 2018;19:29–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Cormier DJ, Gellhorn AC, Singh JR. Soleus muscle herniation with magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound correlation in a female long-distance runner: a case report. PM R. 2017;9(5):529–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Myers RJ, Murdock EE, Farooqi M, van Ness G, Crawford DC. A unique case of common peroneal nerve entrapment. Orthopedics. 2015;38(7):e644–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Tsilogianni Z, Grapatsas K, Papanikolaou Z, Kokkini-Paschou A, Tsantilas A, Tsiligiris V, et al. Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome: a common cause of a rare clinical entity–critical leg ischemia in the young. Mil Med. 2014;179(1):e124–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Jovicić M, Jovicić V, Hrković M, Lazović M. Medial tibial stress syndrome: case report. Med Pregl. 2014;67(7–8):247–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. McAree BJ, O’Donnell ME, Davison GW, Boyd C, Lee B, Soong CV. Bilateral popliteal artery occlusion in a competitive bike rider: case report and clinical review. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2008;42(4):380–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Farr D, Selesnick H. Chronic exertional compartment syndrome in a collegiate soccer player: a case report and literature review. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2008;37(7):374–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Schraml FV, Riego De Dios RL, Flemming DJ. Exercise-related longitudinal tibial stress fracture in a young person. Ann Nucl Med. 2006;20(6):441–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Bryan BM, Lutz GE, O’Brien SJ. Sural nerve entrapment after injury to the gastrocnemius: a case report. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(5):604–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Grimley RP, O’Garra JA, Cheatle T, Mohan SR, Hickman P. Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome. Int J Surg Case Rep. 1990;1(2):13–5.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Bell S. Intracompartmental pressures on exertion in a patient with a popliteal artery entrapment syndrome. Am J Sports Med. 1985;13(5):365–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. McAuliffe TB, Fiddian NJ, Browett JP. Entrapment neuropathy of the superficial peroneal nerce. A bilateral case. 2022.

  102. Rubio FJ, Franco L, Montero MJ, Ugarte P, Valero A. Accessory soleus muscle in an athlete. Presentation of a case and a literature review. Apunts Medicina de l’Esport. 2015;50(186):79–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Allen GJ. Longitudinal stress fractures of the tibia: diagnosis with CT. Radiology. 1988;167(3):799–801.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. McDonald PT, Easterbrook JA, Rich NM, Collins GJJ, Kozloff L, Clagett GP, et al. Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome. Clinical, noninvasive and angiographic diagnosis. Am J Surg. 1980;139(3):318–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Brodie JT, Dormans JP, Gregg JR, Davidson RS. Accessory soleus muscle. Feuillets de Radiologie. 1997;51(6):345–7.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Lauder TD, Stuart MJ, Amrami KK, Felmlee JP. Exertional compartment syndrome and the role of magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81(4):315–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Yang LJS, Gala VC, McGillicuddy JE. Superficial peroneal nerve syndrome: an unusual nerve entrapment. Case report. J Neurosurg. 2006;104(5):820–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Truex N, Menge TJ. Bilateral chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the leg: a rare but often debilitating condition in athletes. S D Med. 2018;71(7):310–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Romanus B, Lindahl S, Stener B. Accessory soleus muscle. A clinical and radiographic presentation of eleven cases. J Bone Joint Surg Series A. 1986;68(5):731–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Milgrom C, Zloczower E, Fleischmann C, Spitzer E, Landau R, Bader T, et al. Medial tibial stress fracture diagnosis and treatment guidelines. J Sci Med Sport. 2021;24(6):526–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2020.11.015.

  111. van Zantvoort A, Setz M, Hoogeveen A, van Eerten P, Scheltinga M. Chronic lower leg pain: entrapment of common peroneal nerve or tibial nerve. Unfallchirurg. 2020;123(Suppl 1):20–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Drexler M, Rutenberg TF, Rozen N, Warschawski Y, Rath E, Chechik O, et al. Single minimal incision fasciotomy for the treatment of chronic exertional compartment syndrome: outcomes and complications. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(1):73–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Fabre T, Montero C, Gaujard E, Gervais-Dellion F, Durandeau A. Chronic calf pain in athletes due to sural nerve entrapment: a report of 18 cases. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28(5):679–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Van der Velde GM, Hsu WS. Posterior tibial stress fracture: a report of three cases. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999;22(5):341–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Clayer M, Krishnan J, Lee WK, Tamblyn P. Longitudinal stress fracture of the tibia: two cases. Clin Radiol. 1992;46(6):401–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Clement DB. Tibial stress syndrome in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 1974;2(2):81–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Detmer DE, Sharpe K, Sufit RL, Girdley FM. Chronic compartment syndrome: diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Am J Sports Med. 1985;13(3):162–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Fouasson-Chailloux A, Menu P, Allorent J, Dauty M. Determination of the predictive clinical parameters to diagnose chronic exertional compartment syndrome. Eur J Sport Sci. 2018;18(2):279–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Fronek J, Mubarak SJ, Hargens AR, Lee YF, Gershuni DH, Garfin SR, et al. Management of chronic exertional anterior compartment syndrome of the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;220:217–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Ha KI, Hahn SH, Chung MY, Yang BK, Yi SR. A clinical study of stress fractures in sports activities. Orthopedics. 1991;14(10):1089–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Lane R, Nguyen T, Cuzzilla M, Oomens D, Mohabbat W, Hazelton S. Functional popliteal entrapment syndrome in the sportsperson. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;43(1):81–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2011.10.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Lindorsson S, Zhang Q, Brisby H, Rennerfelt K. Significantly lower intramuscular pressure in the posterior and lateral compartments compared with the anterior compartment suggests alterations of the diagnostic criteria for chronic exertional compartment syndrome in the lower leg. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(4):1332–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Mubarak SJ, Gould RN, Lee YF, Schmidt DA, Hargens AR. The medial tibial stress syndrome. A cause of shin splints. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10(4):201–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Orava S, Huikko A. Stress fracture of the mid-tibial shaft. 1984. p. 35–7.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Puranen J. The medial tibial syndrome: exercise ischaemia in the medial fascial compartment of the leg. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1974;56-B(4):712–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Styf J. Diagnosis of exercise-induced pain in the anterior aspect of the lower leg. Am J Sports Med. 1988;16(2):165–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Styf J, Lysell E. Chronic compartment syndrome in the erector spinae muscle. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987;12(7):680–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. DiMauro S, Andreu A, Bruno C, Hadjigeorgiou G. Myophosphorylase Deficiency (Glycogenosis Type V McArdle Disease). Curr Mol Med. 2005;2(2):189–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Leach RE, Purnell MB, Saito A. Peroneal nerve entrapment in runners. Am J Sports Med. 1989;17(2):287–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Lovelock T, Claydon M, Dean A. Functional popliteal artery entrapment syndrome: an approach to diagnosis and management. Int J Sports Med. 2021;42(13):1159–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Vajapey S, Miller TL. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic exertional compartment syndrome: a review of current literature. Phys Sportsmed. 2017;45(4):391–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Moen MH, Tol JL, Weir A, Steunebrink M, de Winter TC. Medial tibial stress syndrome: a critical review. Sports Med. 2009;39(7):523–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Galbraith RM, Lavallee ME. Medial tibial stress syndrome: Conservative treatment options. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2009;2(3):127–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. McInnis KC, Ramey LN. High-risk stress fractures: diagnosis and management. PM R. 2016;8(3 Suppl):S113–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Veith RG, Matsen FA, Newell SG. Recurrent anterior compartmental syndromes. Phys Sportsmed. 1980;8(11):80–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Wallensten R, Eriksson E. Intramuscular pressures in exercise-induced lower leg pain. Int J Sports Med. 1984;5(1):31–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Roscoe D, Roberts AJ, Hulse D. Intramuscular compartment pressure measurement in chronic exertional compartment syndrome: new and improved diagnostic criteria. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(2):392–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Pedret C, Balius R, Blasi M, Dávila F, Aramendi JF, Masci L, et al. Ultrasound classification of medial gastrocnemious injuries. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30(12):2456–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Pedowitz RA, Hargens AR, Mubarak SJ, Gershuni DH. Modified criteria for the objective diagnosis of chronic compartment syndrome of the leg. Am J Sports Med. 1990;18(1):35–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Winters M. Medial tibial stress syndrome: Diagnosis, treatment and outcome assessment (PhD Academy Award). Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(18):1213–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Orlin JR, Lied IH, Stranden E, Irgens HU, Andersen JR. Prevalence of chronic compartment syndrome of the legs: Implications for clinical diagnostic criteria and therapy. Scand J Pain. 2016;12:7–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. Tzortziou V, Maffulli N, Padhiar N. Diagnosis and management of chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) in the United Kingdom. Clin J Sport Med. 2006;16(3):209–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Ghasabmahaleh SH, Rezasoltani Z, Dadarkhah A, Hamidipanah S, Mofrad RK, Najafi S. Spinal manipulation for subacute and chronic lumbar radiculopathy: a randomised controlled trial. Am J Med. 2021;134(1):135–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.08.005.

  144. Thein R, Tilbor I, Rom E, Herman A, Haviv B, Burstein G, et al. Return to sports after chronic anterior exertional compartment syndrome of the leg: Conservative treatment versus surgery. J Orthop Surg. 2019;27(2). Available from: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L626932279&from=export

  145. Satpute K, Hall T, Bisen R, Lokhande P. The effect of spinal mobilisation with leg movement in patients with lumbar radiculopathy-a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(5):828–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Yates B, White S. The Incidence and Risk Factors in the Development of Medial Tibial Stress Syndrome among Naval Recruits. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(3):772–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. FA M, RG V. compartmental syndrome in children. J Pediatr Orthop. 1981;1:33–41. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7341650. 

  148. Black KP, Taylor DE. Current concepts in the treatment of common compartment syndromes in athletes. Sports Med. 1993;15(6):408–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Carmont MR, Mei-Dan O, Bennell KL. Stress fracture management: current classification and new healing modalities. Oper Tech Sports Med. 2009;17(2):81–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.otsm.2009.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Garcia JC. Nerve entrapment. Telemicrosurgery: Robot Assisted. Microsurgery. 2013;104:109–18.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Tzika M, Paraskevas G, Natsis K. Entrapment of the superficial peroneal nerve: an anatomical insight. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2015;105(2):150–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Balius R, Blasi M, Pedret C, Alomar X, Peña-Amaro J, Vega JA, et al. A histoarchitectural approach to skeletal muscle injury: searching for a common nomenclature. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(3):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Balius R, Maestro A, Pedret C, Estruch A, Mota J, Rodríguez L, et al. Central aponeurosis tears of the rectus femoris: practical sonographic prognosis. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(11):818–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Berry JA, Elia C, Saini HS, Miulli DE. A review of lumbar radiculopathy, diagnosis, and treatment. Cureus. 2019;11(10):e5934.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Plečko M, Knežević I, Dimnjaković D, Josipović M, Bojanić I. Accessory soleus muscle: two case reports with a completely different presentation caused by the same entity. Case Rep Orthop. 2020;2020:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Lecocq J, Parier J, Fischer M. Le muscle soléaire accessoire. 2005. p. 232–8.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Vicenzino B, De Vos RJ, Alfredson H, Bahr R, Cook JL, Coombes BK, et al. ICON 2019 - International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: there are nine core health-related domains for tendinopathy (CORE DOMAINS): Delphi study of healthcare professionals and patients. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(8):444–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Scott A, Squier K, Alfredson H, Bahr R, Cook JL, Coombes B, et al. ICON 2019: International Scientific Tendinopathy Symposium Consensus: Clinical Terminology. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(5):260–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Aweid O, del Buono A, Malliaras P, Iqbal H, Morrissey D, Maffulli N, et al. Systematic review and recommendations for intracompartmental pressure monitoring in diagnosing chronic exertional compartment syndrome of the leg. Clin J Sport Med. 2012;22(4):356–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Winters M, Bakker EWP, Moen MH, Barten CC, Teeuwen R, Weir A. Medial tibial stress syndrome can be diagnosed reliably using history and physical examination. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(19):1267–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Mulvad B, Nielsen RO, Lind M, Ramskov D. Diagnoses and time to recovery among injured recreational runners in the RUN CLEVER trial. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0204742. [Cited 2021 Sep 9].

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Winters M. The diagnosis and management of medial tibial stress syndrome: an evidence update [Diagnostik und Therapie des Schienbeinkantensyndroms: Update zur Studienlage]. Unfallchirurg. 2020;123:15–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Dash N, Kushwaha AS. Stress fractures-a prospective study amongst recruits. Med J Armed Forces India. 2012;68(2):118–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Xu C, Silder A, Zhang J, Reifman J, Unnikrishnan G. A cross-sectional study of the effects of load carriage on running characteristics and tibial mechanical stress: implications for stress-fracture injuries in women. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):125.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  165. Sinha S, Houghton J, Holt PJ, Thompson MM, Loftus IM, Hinchliffe RJ. Popliteal entrapment syndrome. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(1):252–262.e30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2011.08.050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Garwood ER, Duarte A, Bencardino JT. MR imaging of entrapment neuropathies of the lower extremity. Radiol Clin North Am. 2018;56(6):997–1012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Ghasabmahaleh SH, Rezasoltani Z, Dadarkhah A, Hamidipanah S, Mofrad RK, Najafi S. Spinal manipulation for subacute and chronic lumbar radiculopathy: a randomised controlled trial. Am J Med. 2021;134(1):135–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.08.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Nsitem V. Diagnosis and rehabilitation of gastrocnemius muscle tear: a case report. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2013;57(4):327–33. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24302780%0A. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC3845475.

  169. Flecca D, Tomei A, Ravazzolo N, Martinelli M, Giovagnorio F. US evaluation and diagnosis of rupture of the medial head of the gastrocnemius (tennis leg). J Ultrasound. 2007;10(4):194–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Mukish P, Reybet-Degat PY, Demangel A, Trouilloud P, Baulot E. Accessory soleus muscle: a difficult diagnosis: a case report and a review of the literature. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2012;22(SUPPL. 1):610–2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The first author is sponsored by the Government of National Unity Libyan Embassy – London Academic Attaché for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sports & Exercise Medicine, William Harvey Research Institute, Barts & The London School of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Fatma Bosnina, Nat Padhiar, Stuart Miller, Krishna Girotra, Chrysovalanto Massoura & Dylan Morrissey

  2. London Sportswise, London, UK

    Nat Padhiar

  3. Barts Health NHS Trust Physiotherapy Department, London, UK

    Dylan Morrissey

Authors
  1. Fatma Bosnina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nat Padhiar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stuart Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Krishna Girotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chrysovalanto Massoura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dylan Morrissey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Main Authors: Fatma Bosnina, Nat Padhiar, Dylan Morrissey

Statistical analysis: Fatma Bosnina, Stuart Miller

Data collection: Fatma Bosnina, Chrysovalanto Massoura, Krishna Girotra

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nat Padhiar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Collection of EILP diagnosis since 1986.

Additional file 2.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The completed PRISMA-ScR checklist.

Additional file 3.

Full search strategy. The full search strategy used within each database.

Additional file 4.

Developing a framework for the diagnostic criteria of patients with EILP scoping review data charting table. The data charting table for this review.

Additional file 5.

Developing a framework for the diagnostic criteria of patients with EILP scoping review mixed method appraisal tool. The mixed method appraisal tool (MMAT) scoring for this review.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bosnina, F., Padhiar, N., Miller, S. et al. Developing a diagnostic framework for patients presenting with Exercise Induced Leg Pain (EILP): a scoping review. J Foot Ankle Res 16, 82 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-023-00680-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-023-00680-6

Keywords

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

ISSN: 1757-1146