ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2022
Psychological Patient-reported Outcomes Cannot Predict a Second Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Patients who Return to Sports after an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postoperative Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury Scores Predict Reinjury in Adolescent Athletes.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Differences in postoperative knee function based on concomitant treatment of lateral meniscal injury in the setting of primary ACL reconstruction.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Use of PROMs in Paediatric Orthopaedic Registries.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Clinic and Home-Based Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction Resolves Thigh Muscle Atrophy after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with the Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft: A Case Report.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Influence of Psychosocial Factors on Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Sports healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Psychological patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are recommended for use in test batteries to aid in decision-making, regarding whether patients are well prepared to return to sports (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the values that should be regarded as "pass" or "fail" are still unclear. Purpose: This study aimed to identify cut-off values for three commonly used psychological PROs that could differentiate patients who suffer a second ACL injury from patients who do not within two years of RTS in patients after ACL reconstruction with respect to recovery of symmetrical quadriceps strength. Study design: Diagnostic/prognostic study. Methods: Demographic data, isokinetic strength test data for quadriceps, as well as results for the ACL-Return to Sport after Injury scale (ACL-RSI), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life, and Function in Sport and Recreation sub-scales, and the 18-item version of the Knee Self-Efficacy Scale (K-SES Results: In total, 641 (355 men, 61%) patients (24.8 [SD 7.6] year old at ACL reconstruction) were included. The cut-off values were not able to differentiate patients who suffered a second ACL injury up to 24 months after RTS and ACL reconstruction from patients who did not. Additionally, achieving symmetrical quadriceps strength did not improve the cut-off psychometric properties. Conclusion: Since cut-off values could not differentiate between patients who suffered a second ACL injury and those who did not, clinicians should not rely only on cut-off values or a single PRO of those analyzed in this study when making decisions on which patients are at risk of experiencing a second ACL injury when returning to sports after ACL reconstruction. Level of Evidence: Level 3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.