Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30905035›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2019

What is the Evidence for and Validity of Return-to-Sport Testing after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Kate E Webster, Timothy E Hewett

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

131 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. [Return to sports WeChat applet for evaluating the rehabilitation effects after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023
    Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

71 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.

Kate E WebsterSchool of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. k.webster@latrobe.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5573-3688
Timothy E HewettDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) return-to-sport (RTS) test batteries are popular and are employed to test athletes' sport performance and help ensure a safe return to sport.

objectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine: (1) the proportion of patients who passed RTS test batteries after ACL reconstruction, (2) whether passing RTS test batteries increased rates of return to play, and (3) whether passing RTS test batteries reduced subsequent rates of knee and ACL injury.

methodsFive databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus) were searched to identify relevant studies and data were extracted regarding the number of patients who passed the RTS test battery, as well as subsequent RTS rates and re-injury data when available. Results were combined using proportional and risk-ratio meta-analyses.

resultsEighteen studies met eligibility criteria. Proportional meta-analysis showed that only 23% of patients passed RTS test batteries. One study showed that passing an RTS test battery led to greater RTS rates. Two studies showed passing RTS test batteries did not significantly reduce the risk of a further knee injury (risk ratio (RR) = 0.28 (95% CI 0.04-0.94), p = 0.09) and five studies showed that passing RTS test batteries did not reduce the risk for all subsequent ACL injuries (RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.27-2.3), p = 0.7). However, passing an RTS test battery did significantly reduce the risk for subsequent graft rupture (RR = 0.40 (95% CI 0.23-0.69), p < 0.001], although it increased the risk for a subsequent contralateral ACL injury (RR = 3.35 (95% CI 1.52-7.37), p = 0.003].

conclusionThese analyses shows that there are equivocal findings in terms of the validity of current RTS test batteries in relation to reduction of the risk of graft rupture and contralateral ACL injuries. These findings have implications for RTS advice given to patients based on the results of RTS test batteries, and further work is needed to validate the criteria currently used and determine the true value.

Indexed as

Return to SportAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAthletesExercise TestHumansRecurrenceRisk FactorsRupture

Identifiers

PMID30905035

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.