ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Judgement and Decision Making in Clinical and Return-to-Sports Decision Making: A Narrative Review.
Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ready or Not; A Narrative Synthesis of Sports Medicine Practitioners' Practices During Return to Play in the Management of Musculoskeletal Injuries.European journal of sport science · 2025Pooled it
- Lower-limb biomechanical alterations across movement tasks in individuals with chronic ankle instability: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Mechanobiology in medicine · 2026Review
- Discordance Between Textual Reasoning and Visual Interpretation in Large Language Models for Low Back Pain: Cross-Sectional Quantitative Evaluation and Exploratory Multimodal Stress Test.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- The readiness-preparedness bias: recalibrating monitoring logic.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Making return-to-sport decisions can be complex and multi-faceted, as it requires an evaluation of an individual's physical, psychological, and social well-being. Specifically, the timing of progression, regression, or return to sport can be difficult to determine due to the multitude of information that needs to be considered by clinicians. With the advent of new sports technology, the increasing volume of data poses a challenge to clinicians in effectively processing and utilising it to enhance the quality of their decisions. To gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying human decision making and associated biases, this narrative review provides a brief overview of different decision-making models that are relevant to sports rehabilitation settings. Accordingly, decisions can be made intuitively, analytically, and/or with heuristics. This narrative review demonstrates how the decision-making models can be applied in the context of return-to-sport decisions and shed light on strategies that may help clinicians improve decision quality.
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.