Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21395362›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2011

A systematic review on the treatment of acute ankle sprain: brace versus other functional treatment types.

Ellen Kemler, Ingrid van de Port, Frank Backx, C Niek van Dijk

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05217173 (Functional Ankle Recovery After a Telerehabilitation Program for Patients With Sprain in the First Level of Care, Controlled Clinical Trial and Cost-effectiveness Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05217173 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Functional Ankle Recovery After a Telerehabilitation Program for Patients With Sprain in the First Level of Care, Controlled Clinical Trial and Cost-effectiveness Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialRan2022 to 2022Enrolled82ConditionsAnkle Sprain, Ankle Sprain 1St Degree, Ankle Sprain 2Nd DegreeArmstelerehabilitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. The impact of ankle kinesio taping on pain management in patients with acute ankle sprain.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2024
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Assessment of functional treatment versus plaster of Paris in the treatment of grade 1 and 2 lateral ankle sprains.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2015
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ellen KemlerRudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, Department of Rehabilitation, Nursing Science and Sport, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. h.j.kemler-2@umcutrecht.nl
Ingrid van de Port
Frank Backx
C Niek van Dijk
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ankle injuries, especially ankle sprains, are a common problem in sports and medical care. Ankle sprains result in pain and absenteeism from work and/or sports participation, and can lead to physical restrictions such as ankle instability. Nowadays, treatment of ankle injury basically consists of taping the ankle. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of ankle braces as a treatment for acute ankle sprains compared with other types of functional treatments such as ankle tape and elastic bandages. A computerized literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Clinical Trial Register. This review includes randomized controlled trials in English, German and Dutch, published between 1990 and April 2009 that compared ankle braces as a treatment for lateral ankle sprains with other functional treatments. The inclusion criteria for this systematic review were (i) individuals (sports participants as well as non-sports participants) with an acute injury of the ankle (acute ankle sprains); (ii) use of an ankle brace as primary treatment for acute ankle sprains; (iii) control interventions including any other type of functional treatment (e.g. Tubigrip™, elastic wrap or ankle tape); and (iv) one of the following reported outcome measures: re-injuries, symptoms (pain, swelling, instability), functional outcomes and/or time to resumption of sports, daily activities and/or work. Eight studies met all inclusion criteria. Differences in outcome measures, intervention types and patient characteristics precluded pooling of the results, so best evidence syntheses were conducted. A few individual studies reported positive outcomes after treatment with an ankle brace compared with other functional methods, but our best evidence syntheses only demonstrated a better treatment result in terms of functional outcome. Other studies have suggested that ankle brace treatment is a more cost-effective method, so the use of braces after acute ankle sprains should be considered. Further research should focus on economic evaluation and on different types of ankle brace, to examine the strengths and weaknesses of ankle braces for the treatment of acute ankle sprains.

Indexed as

Ankle JointAthletic TapeBracesCompression BandagesAnkle InjuriesEdemaHumansJoint InstabilityPainPain ManagementRecovery of FunctionSecondary PreventionSprains and StrainsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21395362
OpenAlexW2011750517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.