Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26767837›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2016

Return to Play After Hamstring Injuries: A Qualitative Systematic Review of Definitions and Criteria.

Nick van der Horst, Sander van de Hoef, Gustaaf Reurink, Bionka Huisstede, Frank Backx

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The majority of patients return to athletic activity following biceps tenodesis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nick van der HorstDepartment of Rehabilitation, Nursing Science and Sports, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neurosciences, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. n.vanderhorst-3@umcutrecht.nl.
Sander van de HoefDepartment of Rehabilitation, Nursing Science and Sports, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neurosciences, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gustaaf ReurinkDepartment of Orthopaedics, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bionka HuisstedeDepartment of Rehabilitation, Nursing Science and Sports, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neurosciences, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Frank BackxDepartment of Rehabilitation, Nursing Science and Sports, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neurosciences, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore than half of the recurrent hamstring injuries occur within the first month after return-to-play (RTP). Although there are numerous studies on RTP, comparisons are hampered by the numerous definitions of RTP used. Moreover, there is no consensus on the criteria used to determine when a person can start playing again. These criteria need to be critically evaluated, in an attempt to reduce recurrence rates and optimize RTP.

objectiveTo carry out a systematic review of the literature on (1) definitions of RTP used in hamstring research and (2) criteria for RTP after hamstring injuries. STUDY

designSystematic review.

methodsSeven databases (PubMed, EMBASE/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PEDro, Cochrane, SPORTDiscus, Scopus) were searched for articles that provided a definition of, or criteria for, RTP after hamstring injury. There were no limitations on the methodological design or quality of articles. Content analysis was used to record and analyze definitions and criteria for RTP after hamstring injury.

resultsTwenty-five papers fulfilled inclusion criteria, of which 13 provided a definition of RTP and 23 described criteria to support the RTP decision. "Reaching the athlete's pre-injury level" and "being able to perform full sport activities" were the primary content categories used to define RTP. "Absence of pain", "similar strength", "similar flexibility", "medical staff clearance", and "functional performance" were core themes to describe criteria to support the RTP decision after hamstring injury.

conclusionOnly half of the included studies provided some definition of RTP after hamstring injury, of which reaching the athlete's pre-injury level and being able to perform full sport activities were the most important. A wide variety of criteria are used to support the RTP decision, none of which have been validated. More research is needed to reach a consensus on the definition of RTP and to provide validated RTP criteria to facilitate hamstring injury management and reduce hamstring injury recurrence. PROSPERO systematic review registration number: CRD42015016510.

Indexed as

Return to SportAthletic InjuriesHamstring MusclesHumansMuscle StrengthMyalgiaRecovery of FunctionRecurrenceTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26767837
PMCPMC4887544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.