ArticleJournal of athletic training2025
Ankle Scientific Knowledge and Physiotherapy Practice: A Thematic Analysis of Clinical Behaviors of French-Speaking Physiotherapists.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical assessment of lateral ankle sprains among Swedish physiotherapists: a nationwide survey comparing practice to international and locally modified frameworks.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Restoring ankle dorsiflexion range of motion in athletes: an individualized clinical decision-making system.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextChronic ankle instability (CAI) is prevalent among individuals who sustain a lateral ankle sprain (LAS) injury. The persistence of the characteristic long-standing clinical symptoms of CAI may be attributable to the lack of adoption by physiotherapists of evidence-informed clinical guidelines.
objectiveTo investigate the extent to which French-speaking physiotherapists implement the International Ankle Consortium rehabilitation-oriented assessment (ROAST) framework when providing clinical care for individuals with an acute LAS injury.
designCross-sectional study.
settingOnline survey informed by a Delphi process of foot-ankle experts. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsA total of 426 French-speaking physiotherapists completed the online survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The survey was disseminated to French-speaking physiotherapists in France; Switzerland; Quebec, Canada; Luxembourg; and Belgium. It comprised closed and open-ended questions organized in 5 sections: (1) participant demographics, (2) participant self-assessment of expertise, (3) clinical diagnostic assessment of the ankle (bones and ligaments), (4) clinical evaluation after an acute LAS injury (ROAST framework), and (5) CAI. The qualitative data from the open-ended questions were analyzed using best-practice thematic-analysis guidelines.
resultsOnly 6.3% (n = 27) of the respondents could name all Ottawa Ankle Rules criteria. Only 25.6% (n = 109) of the respondents cited or described criterion standard tests from the literature to assess the integrity of the lateral ankle ligaments. Less than 25% (n = 71) of the respondents reported using clinical evaluation outcome metrics (ROAST) recommended by the International Ankle Consortium to inform their clinical care for individuals with an acute LAS injury. In general, the respondents had a greater knowledge of the functional than the mechanical insufficiencies associated with CAI.
conclusionA minority of French-speaking physiotherapist survey respondents use the International Ankle Consortium ROAST to inform their clinical care for individuals with an acute LAS injury. This highlights the responsibility of the scientific community to better disseminate evidence-informed research to clinicians.
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.