ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
The Use of Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) in Evaluating Recovery After Musculoskeletal Injuries in Athletes: A Scoping Review.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is a widely used imaging modality in sports medicine and orthopaedics due to its accuracy in assessing bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition. Tracking these parameters provides valuable insights into the recovery process after musculoskeletal injuries, which are prevalent among athletes. Purpose: To evaluate how DEXA imaging has been used to guide rehabilitation in both recreational and competitive athletes by monitoring changes in BMD and body composition after musculoskeletal injuries. Study Design: Scoping review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and SportDISCUS databases (2000-2024). Studies were included if they used DEXA to measure BMD or body composition changes in athletes after musculoskeletal injuries. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened independently by 2 reviewers, with discrepancies resolved through discussion. Data were synthesized qualitatively, and major trends were reported and identified. Results: Of 1132 unique records, 12 studies met inclusion criteria, involving 319 athletes (34% female) with injuries such as anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, lumbar stress fractures, femoroacetabular impingement, and Achilles tendon ruptures. Athletes represented a range of sports, including soccer, basketball, cricket, and triathlon, at both competitive and recreational levels. DEXA identified significant BMD declines after injury, particularly in the affected limb. For instance, up to a 7% BMD reduction was observed in surgical limbs after ACL reconstruction, persisting for up to 2 years in some cases. Rehabilitation strategies incorporating blood flow restriction therapy or combined running and isometric exercises better preserved lean mass and BMD compared with conventional programs focused solely on closed and open kinetic chain exercises. Conclusion: The review demonstrated that DEXA imaging is a promising tool in orthopaedic sports medicine for assessing injury-related changes in BMD and body composition. It provides detailed insights into recovery processes and aids in tailoring rehabilitation strategies and return-to-sport decisions. Some studies incorporated advanced rehabilitation methods such as blood flow restriction therapy, which appeared to accelerate recovery as measured by DEXA outcomes. Future studies should explore integrating DEXA findings into athlete-specific rehabilitation protocols with validated thresholds for return to play.
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.