Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28887759›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Factors Contributing to Chronic Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Systematic Reviews.

Cassandra Thompson, Siobhan Schabrun, Rick Romero, Andrea Bialocerkowski, Jaap van Dieen, Paul Marshall

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 19 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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial

30 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

6 authors.

Cassandra ThompsonSchool of Science in Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, 2560, Australia. c.thompson2@westernsydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6478-7215
Siobhan SchabrunSchool of Science in Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, 2560, Australia.
Rick RomeroSchool of Science in Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, 2560, Australia.
Andrea BialocerkowskiSchool of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia.
Jaap van DieenDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paul MarshallSchool of Science in Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, 2560, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany factors are thought to contribute to chronic ankle instability (CAI). Multiple systematic reviews have synthesised the available evidence to identify the primary contributing factors. However, readers are now faced with several systematic reviews that present conflicting findings.

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish the statistical significance and effect size of primary factors contributing to CAI and to identify likely reasons for inconsistencies in the literature.

methodsRelevant health databases were searched: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Systematic reviews were included if they answered a focused research question, clearly defined the search strategy criteria and study selection/inclusion and completed a comprehensive search of the literature. Included reviews needed to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and needed to review observational studies of factors and/or characteristics of persons with CAI, with or without meta-analysis. There was no language restriction. Studies using a non-systematic review methodology (e.g. primary studies and narrative reviews) were excluded. Methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the modified R-AMSTAR tool. Meta-analysis on included primary studies was performed.

resultsOnly 17% of primary studies measured a clearly defined CAI population. There is strong evidence to support the contribution of dynamic balance, peroneal reaction time and eversion strength deficits and moderate evidence for proprioception and static balance deficits to non-specific ankle instability.

conclusionsEvidence from previous systematic reviews does not accurately reflect the CAI population. For treatment of non-specific ankle instability, clinicians should focus on dynamic balance, reaction time and strength deficits; however, these findings may not be translated to the CAI population. Research should be updated with an adequately controlled CAI population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2016, CRD42016032592.

Indexed as

AnkleAnkle InjuriesAnkle JointHumansJoint InstabilityProprioceptionSprains and Strains

Identifiers

PMID28887759

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.