Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35246192›Full record

SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2022

Properties of tests for knee joint threshold to detect passive motion following anterior cruciate ligament injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Andrew Strong *Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation, Physiotherapy Section, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. andrew.strong@umu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6715-6208
Ashokan Arumugam *Department 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.

Funding

Centrum for Idrottsforskning P2019-0068Konung Gustaf V:s och Drottning Victorias Frimurarestiftelse 2019Västerbotten Läns Landsting 7002795Västerbotten Läns Landsting ALF 7003575Västerbotten Läns Landsting VLL-358901Västerbotten Läns Landsting VLL838421Vetenskapsrådet 2017-00892
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThreshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) tests of the knee joint are commonly implemented among individuals with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury to assess proprioceptive acuity. Their psychometric properties (PMPs), i.e. reliability, validity and responsiveness, are however unclear. This systematic review aimed to establish the PMPs of existing knee joint TTDPM tests among individuals with ACL injury.

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

resultsFifty-one studies covering 108 TTDPM tests and 1632 individuals with unilateral ACL injury were included. A moderate-to-strong level of evidence indicated insufficient quality for all of the following: convergent validity, known-groups validity, discriminative validity, responsiveness between subgroups, and responsiveness to intervention. Subgroup meta-analyses for known-groups validity did however find that a starting angle of 15° resulted in significantly worse TTDPM for knees with ACL injury compared to those of asymptomatic persons (mean difference 0.28°; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.53; P = 0.03), albeit based on only three studies. Due to the lack of evidence, it was not possible to estimate the quality of reliability, measurement error, and criterion validity, nor responsiveness from a criterion and construct approach.

conclusionsAmong persons with ACL injury, existing tests of knee joint TTDPM lack either sufficient quality or evidence for their reliability, validity and responsiveness. Significantly worse thresholds for ACL-injured knees compared to those of asymptomatic controls from a 15° starting angle and trends towards significance for some validity measures nevertheless encourage the development of standardised tests. Further research investigating the influence of modifiable test components (e.g. starting angle and motion direction) on the PMPs of knee joint TTDPM tests following ACL injury is warranted.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesKinesthesisProprioceptionRange of Motion, ArticularHumansKnee JointReproducibility of ResultsKinesthesiaProprioceptionReliabilityResponsivenessValidity

Identifiers

PMID35246192
PMCPMC8895768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.