Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35768181›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of sports medicine2022

Rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament and meniscal injuries: a best-evidence synthesis of systematic reviews for the OPTIKNEE consensus.

Adam G Culvenor, Michael A Girdwood, Carsten B Juhl, Brooke E Patterson, Melissa J Haberfield, Pætur M Holm, Alessio Bricca, Jackie L Whittaker, Ewa M Roos, Kay M Crossley

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

Review in British journal of sports medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
22.9field-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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Adam G CulvenorLa Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia a.culvenor@latrobe.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9491-0264
Michael A GirdwoodLa Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6477-7263
Carsten B JuhlDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Funen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8456-5364
Brooke E PattersonLa Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6570-5429
Melissa J HaberfieldLa Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6366-0896
Pætur M HolmDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Funen, Denmark.
Alessio BriccaDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Funen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9717-918X
Jackie L WhittakerDepartment of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6591-4976
Ewa M RoosDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Funen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5425-2199
Kay M CrossleyLa Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5892-129X
La Trobe University · AUUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSynthesise evidence for effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions following ACL and/or meniscal tear on symptomatic, functional, clinical, psychosocial, quality of life and reinjury outcomes.

designOverview of systematic reviews with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials investigating rehabilitation interventions following ACL and/or meniscal tears in young adults.

resultsWe included 22 systematic reviews (142 trials of mostly men) evaluating ACL-injured individuals and none evaluating isolated meniscal injuries. We synthesised data from 16 reviews evaluating 12 different interventions. Moderate-certainty evidence was observed for: (1) neuromuscular electrical stimulation to improve quadriceps strength; (2) open versus closed kinetic chain exercises to be similarly effective for quadriceps strength and self-reported function; (3) structured home-based versus structured in-person rehabilitation to be similarly effective for quadriceps and hamstring strength and self-reported function; and (4) postoperative knee bracing being ineffective for physical function and laxity. There was low-certainty evidence that: (1) preoperative exercise therapy improves self-reported and physical function postoperatively; (2) cryotherapy reduces pain and analgesic use; (3) psychological interventions improve anxiety/fear; and (4) whole body vibration improves quadriceps strength. There was very low-certainty evidence that: (1) protein-based supplements improve quadriceps size; (2) blood flow restriction training improves quadriceps size; (3) neuromuscular control exercises improve quadriceps and hamstring strength and self-reported function; and (4) continuous passive motion has no effect on range of motion.

conclusionThe general level of evidence for rehabilitation after ACL or meniscal tear was low. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that several rehabilitation types can improve quadriceps strength, while brace use has no effect on knee function/laxity.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionKnee InjuriesAnterior Cruciate LigamentConsensus Statements as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMuscle StrengthQuadriceps MuscleQuality of LifeSystematic Reviews as TopicYoung Adultanterior cruciate ligamentexercisekneerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID35768181
PMCPMC9726950
OpenAlexW4283763095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.