Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32819327›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2020

Do knee abduction kinematics and kinetics predict future anterior cruciate ligament injury risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Anna Cronström, Mark W Creaby, Eva Ageberg

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Are We Overlooking Anatomical Contributions to Dynamic Knee Valgus?International journal of sports physical therapy · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anna CronströmDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, Box 157, 221 00, Lund, Sweden. anna.cronstrom@med.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3282-6320
Mark W CreabySchool of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia.
Eva AgebergDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, Box 157, 221 00, Lund, Sweden.
Lund University · SEAustralian Catholic University · AU

Funding

Medicinska Fakulteten, Lunds Universitet NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo systematically review the association between knee abduction kinematics and kinetics during weight-bearing activities at baseline and the risk of future anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury.

methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. A search in the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus was performed. Inclusion criteria were prospective studies including people of any age, assessing baseline knee abduction kinematics and/or kinetics during any weight-bearing activity for the lower extremity in individuals sustaining a future ACL injury and in those who did not.

resultsNine articles were included in this review. Neither 3D knee abduction angle at initial contact (Mean diff: -1.68, 95%CI: - 4.49 to 1.14, ACL injury n = 66, controls n = 1369), peak 3D knee abduction angle (Mean diff: -2.17, 95%CI: - 7.22 to 2.89, ACL injury n = 25, controls n = 563), 2D peak knee abduction angle (Mean diff: -3.25, 95%CI: - 9.86 to 3.36, ACL injury n = 8, controls n = 302), 2D medial knee displacement (cm; Mean diff:: -0.19, 95%CI: - 0,96 to 0.38, ACL injury n = 72, controls n = 967) or peak knee abduction moment (Mean diff:-10.61, 95%CI: - 26.73 to 5.50, ACL injury n = 54, controls n = 1330) predicted future ACL injury.

conclusionContrary to clinical opinion, our findings indicate that knee abduction kinematics and kinetics during weight-bearing activities may not be risk factors for future ACL injury. Knee abduction of greater magnitude than that observed in the included studies as well as factors other than knee abduction angle or moment, as possible screening measures for knee injury risk should be evaluated in future studies.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate LigamentBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansKineticsKnee JointProspective StudiesAnterior cruciate ligamentKnee abductionKnee injuryRisk factor

Identifiers

PMID32819327
PMCPMC7441716
OpenAlexW3053249349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.