ObjectiveTo determine sex-based differences in risk of a second ACL injury (overall and by laterality) following primary ACL reconstruction in athletes who are attempting to return to sport.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis.Data sourcesSystematic search of five databases conducted in August 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies reporting sex-based differences in the incidence of second ACL injury in athletes attempting to return-to-sports and who were followed for at least 1 year following primary ACL reconstruction.ResultsNineteen studies were included in this review, with seven studies excluded from the primary meta-analysis due to high risk of bias. The remaining 12 studies (n=1431 females, n=1513 males) underwent meta-analysis, with all 19 studies included in a sensitivity analysis. Total second ACL injury risk was 21.9% (females: 22.8%, males: 20.3%). Females were found to have 10.7% risk of an ipsilateral ACL injury and 11.8% risk of a contralateral ACL injury. Males were found to have 12.0% risk of an ipsilateral ACL injury and 8.7% risk of a contralateral ACL injury. No statistically significant differences were observed for total second ACL injury risk (risk difference=−0.6%, 95% CI −4.9 to 3.7, p=0.783, I2=41%) or contralateral ACL injury risk (risk difference=1.9%, 95% CI −0.5% to 4.4%, p=0.113, I2=15%) between sexes. Females were found to have a 3.4% absolute risk reduction in subsequent ipsilateral ACL injury risk compared with males (risk difference=−3.4%, 95% CI −6.7% to −0.02%, p=0.037, I2=35%).ConclusionBoth sexes have >20% increased risk of experiencing a second ACL injury. Any difference in the absolute risk of either a subsequent ipsilateral or contralateral ACL injury between sexes appears to be small.RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42020148369)

The quality of literature used as the foundation to any research or scholarly project is critical. The purpose of this study was to analyze the extent to which predatory nursing journals were included in credible databases, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus, commonly used by nurse scholars when searching for information. Findings indicated that no predatory nursing journals were currently indexed in MEDLINE or CINAHL, and only one journal was in Scopus. Citations to articles published in predatory nursing journals are not likely found in a search using these curated databases but rather through Google or Google Scholar search engines.