Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33609272›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

Hamstrings Neuromuscular Function After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

David A Sherman, Neal R Glaviano, Grant E Norte

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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 1 country.

David A ShermanSchool of Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Health and Human Services, The University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft St., HH 2505E, Mail Stop 119, Toledo, OH, 43606, USA. david.sherman2@rockets.utoledo.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3027-9124
Neal R GlavianoDepartment of Kinesiology, College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4515-8015
Grant E NorteSchool of Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Health and Human Services, The University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft St., HH 2505E, Mail Stop 119, Toledo, OH, 43606, USA.
University of Toledo · USUniversity of Connecticut · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHamstrings neuromuscular function is a crucial component of functional movement, and changes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury contribute to risk factors for secondary injury and long-term sequelae. To effectively treat muscular impairments, an accurate understanding of hamstrings neuromuscular function in patients with ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is needed.

objectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to describe and quantify hamstrings neuromuscular function in individuals with ACLR compared to controls.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and EBSCOhost databases in October of 2020 for studies evaluating the difference between hamstrings electromyography (EMG) between individuals with ACLR and controls. Two independent reviewers assessed each paper for inclusion and quality. Means and standard deviations were extracted from each included study to allow random-effect size (ES) meta-analysis calculations for comparison of results.

resultsThirty-four studies were included for final review. From these, 5 categories of neuromuscular outcomes were identified, and studies were grouped accordingly: (1) muscle activation levels (EMG amplitude), (2) co-activation, (3) onset timing, (4) electromechanical delay, and (5) time-to-peak activity. Moderate to strong evidence indicates that individuals with ACLR demonstrate higher hamstrings EMG amplitude (normalized to % maximum voluntary isometric contraction) and hamstrings-to-quadriceps co-activation during gait and stair ambulation compared to controls. In addition, there was moderate evidence of longer electromechanical delay during knee flexion and greater hamstrings-to-quadriceps co-activation during knee extension compared to controls.

conclusionsGreater hamstrings EMG amplitude and co-activation during gait and ambulation tasks and longer electromechanical delay of the hamstrings in individuals with ACLR align with clinical impairments following ACLR and have implications for re-injury risk and long-term joint health, thus warranting attention in rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionHamstring MusclesBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansKnee JointQuadriceps Muscle

Identifiers

PMID33609272
OpenAlexW3133463593

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.