ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Is the anterior drawer test still valuable for diagnosing mechanical ankle instability in clinical practice and research?
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Arthroscopic vs. open Broström-Gould procedure for chronic lateral ankle instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Relationship between anterior ankle laxity and anterior talar translation during landing using dual fluoroscopic imaging.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Push-off asymmetry and kinetic strategies in functional ankle instability during continuous vertical jump tasks.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The anterior drawer test (ADT) has been widely used in assessing mechanical ankle instability (MAI), yet its applicability has been questioned. This study aims to clarify the clinical value of the ADT. Five databases were searched in January 2025. Studies investigating the properties of the ADT were included. Data on reliability, validity, diagnostic accuracy, and responsiveness were extracted. A total of 424 studies were screened, and 45 studies were included. The ADT generally demonstrated good to excellent intra-rater reliability, but relatively poor inter-rater reliability. Criterion validity was supported by moderate to strong correlations with imaging and anatomical measurements. The diagnostic accuracy of ADT and its variants, such as the anterolateral and reverse ADTs, showed to be generally favorable. Inconsistencies in responsiveness across studies highlighted the need for population-specific classifications and the urgent establishment of corresponding measurement standards. The manual ADT exhibited a minimal detectable change value of 1.995 mm for intra-rater reliability. Overall, the ADT provides valuable insights for diagnosing MAI, but its inter-rater reliability and accuracy may be influenced by examiners' clinical experience and testing methods. Standardized protocols and advanced grading systems are needed to minimize inter-rater variability and enhance its result consistency, precision, and clinical utility.
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.