Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27757818›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2017

Can Clinical Evaluation Predict Return to Sport after Acute Hamstring Injuries? A Systematic Review.

Lotte Schut, Arnlaug Wangensteen, Jolanda Maaskant, Johannes L Tol, Roald Bahr, Maarten Moen

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Lotte SchutMedicort Specialists in Physical Therapy, Naarden, The Netherlands.
Arnlaug WangensteenAspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar. arnlaug.wangensteen@nih.no.
Jolanda MaaskantDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Medical Faculty, Academic Medical Center and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes L TolAspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar.
Roald BahrAspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar.
Maarten MoenThe Sports Physician Group, OLVG West, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital · QABergman Clinics · NLMedicort Sports & Orthopedic Care · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe current literature on the value of clinical evaluation for predicting time to return to sport (RTS) after acute hamstring injuries has not been systematically summarised.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the prognostic value of clinical findings (patient history and physical examination) for time to RTS after acute hamstring injuries in athletes. DATA SOURCES: The databases PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library were searched between October 2014 and August 2015. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies evaluating patient history and/or physical assessment findings as possible predictors for time to RTS (described in days or weeks) following acute hamstring injuries in athletes were eligible for inclusion. DATA ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the search results and assessed risk of bias using the modified Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for quality appraisal of prognosis studies. We used a best-evidence synthesis to determine the level of evidence.

resultsSixteen studies were included, of which one study had a low risk of bias and 15 had a high risk of bias. Moderate evidence for an association with time to RTS was found for three clinical findings (visual analogue scale; pain at time of injury, self-predicted time to RTS and clinician predicted time to RTS). There was limited evidence for an association with time to RTS for seven clinical findings (muscle pain during everyday activities, popping sound at injury, forced to stop within 5 min, visual bruising at the site of injury, width (cm) of tenderness to palpation, pain on trunk flexion and pain on active knee flexion initially after injury). The remaining clinical findings revealed either conflicting evidence or limited evidence for an association with time to RTS.

conclusionThere is at present no strong evidence that any clinical finding at baseline provides a valuable prognosis for time to RTS after an acute hamstring injury. There is moderate evidence that visual analogue scale pain at time of injury and predictions for time to RTS by the patient and the clinician are associated with time to RTS. The methodological quality of the current literature is characterised by a substantial risk of bias and reporting of RTS definitions and criteria for RTS were inconsistent. We provide recommendations that can guide the design of future studies.

Indexed as

AthletesReturn to SportAthletic InjuriesHumansLeg InjuriesMedical History TakingPhysical ExaminationPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisRange of Motion, ArticularTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID27757818
OpenAlexW2537789942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.