Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35416633›Full record

ReviewSports medicine - open2022

A Framework for Clinicians to Improve the Decision-Making Process in Return to Sport.

Kate K Yung, Clare L Ardern, Fabio R Serpiello, Sam Robertson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. What to Cover When You're Covering: Preparing the Sideline Physician for the Season.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Managing the Wellbeing of Elite Rugby Union Players from an Occupational Safety and Health Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Kate K YungInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. kai.yung@live.vu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1906-4111
Clare L ArdernMusculoskeletal and Sports Injury Epidemiology Centre, Department of Health Promotion Science, Sophiahemmet University, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8102-3631
Fabio R SerpielloInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8919-3053
Sam RobertsonInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8330-0011

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Return-to-sport (RTS) decisions are critical to clinical sports medicine and are often characterised by uncertainties, such as re-injury risk, time pressure induced by competition schedule and social stress from coaches, families and supporters. RTS decisions have implications not only for the health and performance of an athlete, but also the sports organisation. RTS decision-making is a complex process, which relies on evaluating multiple biopsychosocial factors, and is influenced by contextual factors. In this narrative review, we outline how RTS decision-making of clinicians could be evaluated from a decision analysis perspective. To begin with, the RTS decision could be explained as a sequence of steps, with a decision basis as the core component. We first elucidate the methodological considerations in gathering information from RTS tests. Second, we identify how decision-making frameworks have evolved and adapt decision-making theories to the RTS context. Third, we discuss the preferences and perspectives of the athlete, performance coach and manager. We conclude by proposing a framework for clinicians to improve the quality of RTS decisions and make recommendations for daily practice and research.

Indexed as

DecisionDecision analysisDecision-makingRehabilitationReturn to playRTPRTS

Identifiers

PMID35416633
PMCPMC9008084

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.