Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36521172›Full record

SynthesisJournal of athletic training2023

External Ankle Support and Ankle Biomechanics in Chronic Ankle Instability: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Patrick L Rowe, Adam L Bryant, Thorlene Egerton, Kade L Paterson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of athletic training, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Patrick L RoweCentre for Health, Exercise & Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Adam L BryantCentre for Health, Exercise & Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Thorlene EgertonCentre for Health, Exercise & Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kade L PatersonCentre for Health, Exercise & Sports Medicine, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review the literature to determine whether external ankle supports influence ankle biomechanics in participants with chronic ankle instability (CAI) during sport-related tasks. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases was conducted in November 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies were randomized crossover or parallel-group controlled trials in which researchers assessed ankle biomechanics during landing, running, or change of direction in participants with CAI using external ankle supports compared with no support. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2) and quality of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare between-groups mean differences with 95% CIs. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation recommendations were used to determine the certainty of findings. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 13 studies of low to moderate risk of bias were included. During landing, very low-grade evidence indicated external ankle supports reduce frontal-plane excursion (mean difference [95% CI] = -1.83° [-2.97°, -0.69°], P = .002), plantar-flexion angle at initial contact (-3.86° [-6.18°, -1.54°], P = .001), and sagittal-plane excursion (-3.45° [-5.00°, -1.90°], P < .001) but not inversion angle at initial contact (-1.00° [-3.59°, 1.59°], P = .45). During running, very low- to low-grade evidence indicated external ankle supports reduce sagittal-plane excursion (-5.21° [-8.59°, -1.83°], P = .003) but not inversion angle at initial contact (0.32° [-2.11°, 1.47°], P = .73), frontal-plane excursion (-1.31° [-3.24°, 0.63°], P = .19), or plantar-flexion angle at initial contact (-0.12° [-3.54°, 3.29°], P = .94). Studies investigating changes of direction were insufficient.

conclusionsVery low-grade evidence indicated external ankle supports reduce frontal-plane excursion but not inversion angle at initial contact in participants with CAI during landing. Limiting frontal-plane excursion may reduce ankle-sprain risk. Frontal-plane ankle kinematics were not influenced by external ankle supports during running. Sagittal-plane reductions were observed with external ankle supports during landing and running with low to very low certainty, but their influence on ankle-sprain risk is undetermined.

Indexed as

Ankle InjuriesJoint InstabilityRunningSprains and StrainsAnkleAnkle JointBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicankle sprainbracingchange of directionkinematicskineticslandingrunningtaping

Identifiers

PMID36521172
PMCPMC10569247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.