ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
How Early Is Early? Defining Functional Rehabilitation After Acute Achilles Tendon Rupture: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early functional rehabilitation after acute Achilles tendon rupture is increasingly used in nonoperative protocols, but the definition of "early" remains highly heterogeneous across the literature and no standardized timing threshold has been established. This narrative review clarifies the conceptual and operational definitions of early rehabilitation and examines the unresolved timing-threshold problem. Existing evidence supports early functional rehabilitation without a demonstrated increase in rerupture risk compared with delayed immobilization. Early rehabilitation may improve short-term functional recovery; however, clear long-term superiority over more delayed strategies has not been demonstrated. Substantial heterogeneity persists in the initiation of weightbearing and range of motion and in orthosis duration. Although weightbearing within four weeks is commonly used as an operational definition of early rehabilitation for evidence synthesis, it is not a biologically or clinically validated threshold. The literature also lacks granular evidence defining a timing-response relationship or an optimal initiation window. Current evidence therefore supports early functional rehabilitation as a reasonable strategy, but future research should identify validated timing-response relationships and patient-specific strategies.
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.