Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36734465›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of sports medicine2023

A Multidimensional Assessment of a Novel Adaptive Versus Traditional Passive Ankle Sprain Protection Systems.

Steffen Willwacher, Anna Bruder, Johanna Robbin, Jakob Kruppa, Patrick Mai

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of sports medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steffen WillwacherDepartment of Mechanical and Process Engineering, Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Offenburg, Germany.
Anna BruderDepartment of Mechanical and Process Engineering, Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Offenburg, Germany.
Johanna RobbinDepartment of Mechanical and Process Engineering, Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Offenburg, Germany.
Jakob KruppaDepartment of Mechanical and Process Engineering, Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Offenburg, Germany.
Patrick MaiDepartment of Mechanical and Process Engineering, Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Offenburg, Germany.
Offenburg University of Applied Sciences · DEGerman Sport University Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnkle braces aim to reduce lateral ankle sprains. Next to protection, factors influencing user compliance, such as sports performance, motion restriction, and users' perceptions, are relevant for user compliance and thus injury prevention. Novel adaptive protection systems claim to change their mechanical behavior based on the intensity of motion (eg, the inversion velocity), unlike traditional passive concepts of ankle bracing. PURPOSE: To compare the performance of a novel adaptive brace with 2 passive ankle braces while considering protection, sports performance, freedom of motion, and subjective perception. STUDY

designControlled laboratory study.

methodsThe authors analyzed 1 adaptive and 2 passive (one lace-up and one rigid brace) ankle braces, worn in a low-cut, indoor sports shoe, which was also the no-brace reference condition. We performed material testing using an artificial ankle joint system at high and low inversion velocities. Further, 20 male, young, healthy team sports athletes were analyzed using 3-dimensional motion analysis in sports-related movements to address protection, sports performance, and active range of motion dimensions. Participants rated subjective comfort, stability, and restriction experienced when using the products.

resultsSubjective stability rating was not different between the adaptive and passive systems. The rigid brace was superior in restricting peak inversion during the biomechanical testing compared with the passive braces. However, in the material test, the adaptive brace increased its stiffness by approximately 400% during the fast compared with the slow inversion velocities, demonstrating its adaptive behavior and similar stiffness values to passive braces. We identified minor differences in sports performance tasks. The adaptive brace improved active ankle range of motion and subjective comfort and restriction ratings.

conclusionThe adaptive brace offered similar protective effects in high-velocity inversion situations to those of the passive braces while improving range of motion, comfort, and restriction rating during noninjurious motions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Protection systems are only effective when used. Compared with traditional passive ankle brace technologies, the novel adaptive brace might increase user compliance by improving comfort and freedom of movement while offering similar protection in injurious situations.

Indexed as

Ankle InjuriesAthletic PerformanceAnkleAnkle JointHumansLower ExtremityMaleadaptive technologyankle spraininjuryinversionprotective equipment

Identifiers

PMID36734465
PMCPMC9983046
OpenAlexW4319059232

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.