Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33487859›Full record

ReviewMedical journal, Armed Forces India2021

Return to play after spondylolysis: An overview.

Akilesh Anand Prakash

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 78% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Akilesh Anand PrakashPrimary Care Physician, ACS Medical College and Hospital, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore, India.
ACS Medical College and Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spondylolysis is increasingly associated with specific sports, timely and effective management of which underpins successful return to sports. Hence, the main purpose of this systematic review of reviews [RoR] is to summarize data from published reviews exploring the return to play in athletes with spondylolysis managed conservatively or surgically, thereby providing for recommendations for future practice and research. A systematic review of review of articles published in English and since 2015 was conducted online using PubMed and Google Scholar, as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Predefined eligibility criteria were applied, and the data thus compiled were analyzed. Study quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist. A total of 7 systematic reviews and meta-analysis consisting of 51 primary studies were included in the review. The result of this RoR highlights the knowledge gap and limitations in RTP research post spondylolysis with existing heterogeneity in methods and reporting amid other factors within primary studies. Further quality of the study was found to be of low to critically low confidence based on the AMSTAR-2 scale, suggesting that the results should be interpreted with great caution. Though both conservative and surgical approaches increase the percentage of athletes returning to play, the evidence remains largely limited and inconclusive as to which is better. However, it appears that surgical interventions give those who failed a trial of conservative approach, a better shot at return to play. There is a need for further high-quality, appropriately powered, well-designed, multicentered studies, and also for consensus regarding "returning to play" definition and outcome measures.

Indexed as

Pars interarticularisReturn to playReturn to sportsSpondylolysis

Identifiers

PMID33487859
PMCPMC7809564
OpenAlexW3113393939

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.