Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34350298›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021

Properties of Knee Joint Position Sense Tests for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Andrew Strong, Ashokan Arumugam, Eva Tengman, Ulrik Röijezon, Charlotte K Häger

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew StrongDepartment of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Section, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Ashokan ArumugamDepartment of Physiotherapy, College of Health Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
Eva TengmanDepartment of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Section, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Ulrik RöijezonDepartment of Health, Learning and Technology, Physiotherapy Section, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
Charlotte K HägerDepartment of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Section, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Umeå University · SELuleå University of Technology · SEUniversity of Sharjah · AE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnee proprioception is believed to be deficient after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Tests of joint position sense (JPS) are commonly used to assess knee proprioception, but their psychometric properties (PMPs) are largely unknown. PURPOSE: To evaluate the PMPs (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of existing knee JPS tests targeting individuals with ACL injury. STUDY

designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

methodsPubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ProQuest databases were searched to identify studies that assessed PMPs of knee JPS tests in individuals with ACL injury. The risk of bias for each included study was assessed and rated at the outcome level for each knee JPS test. Overall quality and levels of evidence for each PMP were rated according to established criteria. Meta-analyses with mean differences were conducted using random effects models when adequate data were available.

resultsIncluded were 80 studies covering 119 versions of knee JPS tests. Meta-analyses indicated sufficient quality for known-groups and discriminative validity (ACL-injured knees vs knees of asymptomatic controls and contralateral noninjured knees, respectively), owing to significantly greater absolute errors for ACL-injured knees based on a strong level of evidence. A meta-analysis showed insufficient quality for responsiveness, which was attributed to a lack of significant change over time after diverse interventions with a moderate level of evidence. Statistical heterogeneity (

conclusionKnee JPS tests appear to have sufficient validity in differentiating ACL-injured knees from asymptomatic knees. Further evidence of high methodologic quality is required to ascertain the reliability, responsiveness, and other types of validity assessed here. We recommend investigations that compare the modifiable methodologic components of knee JPS tests on their PMPs to develop standardized evidence-based tests.

Indexed as

proprioception; reliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID34350298
PMCPMC8287371
OpenAlexW3148921830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.