ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Assessing Functional Ankle Instability in Sport: A Critical Review and Bibliometric Analysis.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Perceived Prevalence of Functional Ankle Instability and Associated Factors Among Male Volleyball Players in Qassim Region.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
- In Vivo Assessment of Ankle Stability During Dynamic Exercises: Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Removable brace as a viable alternative to cast immobilization for ankle fractures-a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Rebuilding Stability: Exploring the Best Rehabilitation Methods for Chronic Ankle Instability.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional Ankle Instability (FAI) is the subject of extensive research in sports and other environments. Given the importance of accurately measuring this latent construct, it is imperative to carry out a careful assessment of the available tools. In this context, the aim of this review was to take an in-depth look at the six most cited measurement tools to assess FAI, with a specific focus on patient-reported outcome measures related to ankle and foot. Four electronic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Pubmed, and SportDiscus) were searched (up to November 2022) to identify the six most cited questionnaires for assessing FAI. Our analysis showed that the most cited questionnaires are the following: the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), the Foot Function Index (FFI), the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), and the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT). Each questionnaire was thoroughly assessed and discussed in three sections: Development, Reliability, and Summaries. In addition, bibliometric data were calculated to analyze the relevance of each questionnaire. Despite variations in terms of validity and reliability, conceptualization, structure, and usefulness, the six questionnaires proved to be robust from a psychometric point of view, being widely supported in the literature. The bibliometric analyses suggested that the FAOS ranks first and the FFI ranks sixth in the weighted average of the impact factors of their original publications.
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.