Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35141539›Full record

ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2022

Rehabilitation and Return to Sport Testing After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Where Are We in 2022?

Alli Gokeler, Bart Dingenen, Timothy E Hewett

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

Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
26.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Return to performance criteria in soccer after musculoskeletal injury: A scoping review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Alli GokelerOCON Centre of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Hengelo, The Netherlands.
Bart DingenenReval Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Timothy E HewettHewett Global Consultants, Rochester, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Clinical Research Consultants (United States) · USHasselt University · BEPaderborn University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Athletes who sustain an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury often opt for an ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with the goal and expectation to return to sports at the preinjury level. The proportion of athletes who successfully return to preinjury-level sport is low and disappointing, whereas the rate of second ACL injury in athletes under the age of 20 has been reported to be as high as 40% after return to sport (RTS). Although in recent years, new insights pertaining to RTS have been published, the lack of validity of RTS criteria after ACLR remain. The purpose of this clinical commentary is to present a critical overview of the current literature on RTS testing after ACLR.

Identifiers

PMID35141539
PMCPMC8811523
OpenAlexW4210569718

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.