Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29511700›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2018

Variability of United States Online Rehabilitation Protocols for Proximal Hamstring Tendon Repair.

Harry M Lightsey, David E Kantrowitz, Hasani W Swindell, David P Trofa, Christopher S Ahmad, T Sean Lynch

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Systematic Review of Bracing After Proximal Hamstring Repair.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Proximal Hamstring Ruptures: Treatment, Rehabilitation, and Return to Play.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Harry M LightseyDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
David E KantrowitzDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Hasani W SwindellDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
David P TrofaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Christopher S AhmadDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
T Sean LynchDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal postoperative rehabilitation protocol following repair of complete proximal hamstring tendon ruptures is the subject of ongoing investigation, with a need for more standardized regimens and evidence-based modalities. PURPOSE: To assess the variability across proximal hamstring tendon repair rehabilitation protocols published online by United States (US) orthopaedic teaching programs. STUDY

designCross-sectional study.

methodsOnline proximal hamstring physical therapy protocols from US academic orthopaedic programs were reviewed. A web-based search using the search term

resultsOf 50 rehabilitation protocols identified, 35 satisfied inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Twenty-five protocols (71%) recommended immediate postoperative bracing: 12 (34%) prescribed knee bracing, 8 (23%) prescribed hip bracing, and 5 (14%) did not specify the type of brace recommended. Fourteen protocols (40%) advised immediate nonweightbearing with crutches, while 16 protocols (46%) permitted immediate toe-touch weightbearing. Advancement to full weightbearing was allowed at a mean of 7.1 weeks (range, 4-12 weeks). Most protocols (80%) recommended gentle knee and hip passive range of motion and active range of motion, starting at a mean 1.4 weeks (range, 0-3 weeks) and 4.0 weeks (range, 0-6 weeks), respectively. However, only 6 protocols (17%) provided specific time points to initiate full hip and knee range of motion: a mean 8.0 weeks (range, 4-12 weeks) and 7.8 weeks (range, 0-12 weeks), respectively. Considerable variability was noted in the inclusion and timing of strengthening, stretching, proprioception, and cardiovascular exercises. Fifteen protocols (43%) required completion of specific return-to-sport criteria before resuming training.

conclusionMarked variability is found in both the composition and timing of rehabilitation components across the various complete proximal hamstring repair rehabilitation protocols published online. This finding mirrors the variability of proposed rehabilitation protocols in the professional literature and represents an opportunity to improve patient care.

Indexed as

hamstringphysical therapyrehabilitationtendon repairtendon rupture

Identifiers

PMID29511700
PMCPMC5826004
OpenAlexW2790181835

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.