ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Does joint mobilization effectively improve chronic ankle instability ? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of joint mobilization (JM) in improving chronic ankle instability (CAI). Methods: We conducted a search in six databases-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Pedro, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)-up to March 10, 2025. We included all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on JM for the treatment of CAI. The primary outcome measure was ankle function (Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool, CAIT), and the secondary outcomes were pain and ankle range of motion (ROM). All outcome measures were analyzed by calculating standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We identified 237 studies across six databases and ultimately included 8 RCTs involving 318 subjects with CAI. Our findings indicate that, compared to the control group, JM effectively improves ankle function (SMD = 1.62; 95% CI = 0.29-2.94; Conclusion: JM has been shown to effectively improve ankle joint function and ROM in subjects with CAI, although it does not significantly alleviate pain associated with CAI.
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.