Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27402457›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2017

Should Return to Sport be Delayed Until 2 Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? Biological and Functional Considerations.

Christopher V Nagelli, Timothy E Hewett

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 169 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
169citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
26.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

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

169 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 371 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Review

109 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher V NagelliOrthopedic Biomechanics Laboratories, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, RO_Gu_01_28BIOM, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Timothy E HewettOrthopedic Biomechanics Laboratories, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, RO_Gu_01_28BIOM, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. hewett.timothy@mayo.edu.
The Ohio State University · US

Funding

Neuromuscular Intervention Targeted to Mechanisms of ACL Load in Female AthletesR01AR055563 · NIAMS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI BATES, NATHANIEL ANDREW, KRYCH, AARON · 2008 to 2022
$5.9M
Multi-faceted Approach to Modeling ACL Injury MechanismsR01AR056259 · NIAMS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HEWETT, TIMOTHY E · 2009 to 2017
$4.9M
IDENTIFYING FEMALE ATHLETES AT HIGH RISK FOR ACL INJURYR01AR049735 · NIAMS · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI HEWETT, TIMOTHY E · 2004 to 2008
$2.6M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR049735NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR055563NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR056259
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are common knee injuries sustained by athletes during sports participation. A devastating complication of returning to sport following ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is a second ACL injury. Strong evidence now indicates that younger, more active athletes are at particularly high risk for a second ACL injury, and this risk is greatest within the first 2 years following ACLR. Nearly one-third of the younger cohort that resumes sports participation will sustain a second ACL injury within the first 2 years after ACLR. The evidence indicates that the risk of second injury may abate over this time period. The incidence rate of second injuries in the first year after ACLR is significantly greater than the rate in the second year. The lower relative risk in the second year may be related to athletes achieving baseline joint health and function well after the current expected timeline (6-12 months) to be released to unrestricted activity. This highlights a considerable debate in the return to sport decision process as to whether an athlete should wait until 2 years after ACLR to return to unrestricted sports activity. In this review, we present evidence in the literature that athletes achieve baseline joint health and function approximately 2 years after ACLR. We postulate that delay in returning to sports for nearly 2 years will significantly reduce the incidence of second ACL injuries.

Indexed as

Return to SportAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAthletesHumansKnee InjuriesSportsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID27402457
PMCPMC5226931
OpenAlexW2466127621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.