Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34184945›Full record

ArticleSports health

Assessing Physical Activity After ACL Injury: Moving Beyond Return to Sport.

Christopher Kuenze, Katherine Collins, Karin Allor Pfeiffer, Caroline Lisee

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sports health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher KuenzeDepartment of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Katherine CollinsDepartment of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Karin Allor PfeifferDepartment of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Caroline LiseeMotion Science Institute, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Michigan State University · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextReturn to sport is widely utilized by sports medicine researchers and clinicians as a primary outcome of interest for successful recovery when working with young patients who have undergone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). While return-to-sport outcomes are effective at tracking progress post-ACLR, they are limited because they do not necessarily capture physical activity (PA) engagement, which is important to maintain knee joint health and reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases. Therefore, there is a critical need (1) to describe current PA participation and measurement recommendations; (2) to appraise common PA measurement approaches, including patient-reported outcomes and device-based methodologies; and (3) to provide clinical recommendations for future evaluation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Reports of patient-reported or device-based PA in patients with ACL injury were acquired and summarized based on a PubMed search (2000 through July 2020). Search terms included STUDY

designClinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 5.

resultsWe highlight that (1) individuals with ACLR are 2.36 times less likely to meet the US Department of Health and Human Services PA recommendations even when reporting successful return to sport, (2) common patient-reported PA assessments have significant limitations in the data that can be derived, and (3) alternative patient-reported and device-based assessments may provide improved assessment of PA in this patient population.

conclusionClinicians and researchers have relied on return to sport status or self-reported PA participation via surveys. These approaches are not consistent with current recommendations for PA assessment and do not allow for comparison with contemporary PA recommendations or guidelines. Return to sport, patient-reported outcome measures, and device-based assessment approaches should be used in complementary manners to comprehensively assess PA participation after ACLR. However, appropriate techniques should be used when assessing PA in adult and adolescent populations.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAdolescentAdultAnterior Cruciate LigamentExerciseHumansReturn to SportACL reconstructiondevice-based physical activitymoderate-to-vigorous physical activity

Identifiers

PMID34184945
PMCPMC8883410
OpenAlexW3173873785

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.