Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37378078›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2023

"Biofeedback-based return to sport": individualization through objective assessments.

Antonis Ekizos, Alessandro Santuz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

2 authors.

Antonis EkizosOlympic Training Center of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Alessandro SantuzMax-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Elite athletes are regularly exposed to high and repetitive mechanical stresses and impacts, resulting in high injury rates. The consequences of injury can range from time lost from training and competition to chronic physical and psychological burden, with no guarantee that the athlete will return to preinjury levels of sport activity and performance. Prominent predictors include load management and previous injury, highlighting the importance of the postinjury period for effective return to sport (RTS). Currently, there is conflicting information on how to choose and assess the best reentry strategy. Treating RTS as a continuum, with controlled progression of training load and complexity, seems to provide benefits in this process. Furthermore, objectivity has been identified as a critical factor in improving the effectiveness of RTS. We propose that assessments derived from biomechanical measurements in functional settings can provide the objectivity needed for regular biofeedback cycles. These cycles should aim to identify weaknesses, customize the load, and inform on the status of RTS progress. This approach emphasizes individualization as the primary determinant of RTS and provides a solid foundation for achieving it.

Indexed as

athleticsbiofeedbackbiomechanical measurementscustomizationelite sportfunctional testinglocomotionneuromuscular coordination

Identifiers

PMID37378078
PMCPMC10291093

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.