Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29318172›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2017

Clinical Factors That Predict a Second ACL Injury After ACL Reconstruction and Return to Sport: Preliminary Development of a Clinical Decision Algorithm.

Mark V Paterno, Bin Huang, Staci Thomas, Timothy E Hewett, Laura C Schmitt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
12.9field-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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 174 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Risk factors for ACL revision failure and optimum graft size for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article

23 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark V PaternoDivision of Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Bin HuangDivision of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Staci ThomasDivision of Sports Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Timothy E HewettMayo Clinic Biomechanics Laboratories and Sports Medicine Research Center, Departments of Orthopedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Laura C SchmittDivision of Physical Therapy, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

ACL Reconstruction in the Female Athlete: Strength, Knee Mechanics and OutcomeF32AR055844 · NIAMS · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI SCHMITT, LAURA C · 2008 to 2010
$148k
NIAMS NIH HHS F32 AR055844
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiomechanical predictors of a second anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and return to sport (RTS) have been identified; however, these measures may not be feasible in a standard clinical environment. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether standard clinical measures predicted the risk of second ACL injuries. The hypothesis tested was that a combination of strength, function, and patient-reported measures at the time of RTS would predict the risk of second ACL injuries with high sensitivity and specificity. STUDY

designCase-control study; Level of evidence, 3 and Cohort study (prognosis); Level of evidence, 1.

methodsA total of 163 participants (mean age, 16.7 ± 3.0 years) who underwent primary ACLR and were able to RTS were evaluated. All participants completed an assessment of isokinetic strength, hop testing, balance, and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Participants were tracked for a minimum of 24 months to identify occurrences of a second ACL injury. The initial 120 participants enrolled were used to develop a clinical prediction model that utilized classification and regression tree (CART) analysis, and the remaining 43 participants enrolled were used as a validation dataset. Additional analyses were performed in all 163 participants using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling.

resultsApproximately 20% (23/114) of the initial subset of the cohort suffered a second ACL injury. CART analysis identified age, sex, knee-related confidence, and performance on the triple hop for distance at the time of RTS as the primary predictors of a second ACL injury. Using these variables, a model was generated from which high-risk (n = 53) and low-risk groups (n = 61) were identified. A total of 22 participants in the high-risk group and 1 participant in the low-risk group suffered a second ACL injury. High-risk participants fit 1 of 2 profiles: (1) age <19 years, triple hop for distance between 1.34 and 1.90 times body height, and triple hop for distance limb symmetry index (LSI) <98.5% (n = 43) or (2) age <19 years, triple hop for distance >1.34 times body height, triple hop for distance LSI >98.5%, female sex, and high knee-related confidence (n = 10). The validation step identified the high-risk group as being 5 times (odds ratio, 5.14 [95% CI, 1.00-26.46]) more likely to suffer a second ACL injury, with a sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 72.0%.

conclusionThese findings recognize measures that accurately identify young patients at high risk of sustaining a second ACL injury within 24 months after RTS. The development of a clinical decision algorithm to identify high-risk patients, inclusive of clinically feasible variables such as age, sex, confidence, and performance on the triple hop for distance, can serve as a foundation to re-evaluate appropriate discharge criteria for RTS.

Indexed as

ACLclinical prediction rulesecond injury

Identifiers

PMID29318172
PMCPMC5753959
OpenAlexW2779606250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.