Ankle Sprains

Onieal, Marie‐Eileen

doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.1993.tb00876.x

Cited by 1 publication

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After removing duplicates (n = 91), having screened records by title, abstract, and ineligible articles, 11 papers were identified and included in this systematic review (Table 1). [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] All of the 11 identified papers focused on RTS with no identified papers making recommendations for report to work or return to duty.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[27][28][29][30][32][33][34][35][36] Two papers were written by single authors, 31,34 whereas 8 papers were authored or coauthored by physicians. [27][28][29][30][31][32][33]36 Three papers were coauthors by physical/physio therapists, 30,32,37 1 paper was authored by a nurse, 34 1 paper was authored by doctors of podiatric medicine, 35 1 paper was coauthored by a doctor of osteopathy, 29 and 1 paper was coauthored by athletic trainers. 32 Of the 11 papers included, only 2 were written by interdisciplinary teams.…”

Section: Author Background and Rts Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…32,35 Partial agreement was also reached for the need to assess static balance (n = 7, 63.6%). 27,29,31,[34][35][36][37] The use of a single-leg balance test (n = 4, 36.4%) was the most recommended. 29,34,36,37 While some objective thresholds were provided, no consistency was noted among the included papers.…”

Section: Rts Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 6 studies (54.5%, partial agreement) recommended pain and swelling as a domain that should be tested during an athlete's RTS assessment. [27][28][29]31,34,37 While specific assessments and thresholds were provided, there was no consistency. Six studies reviewed (54.5%, partial agreement) also recommended that subjective assessments (ie, patient reported outcomes), [29][30][31][32]35,37 range of motion, [29][30][31]33,35,37 and strength 27,[29][30][31]33,37 also be assessed to determine RTS.…”

Section: Rts Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anderson et al 27 2010 Medical Doctor Anderson et al 28 2002 Medical Doctor Canty and Nilan 29 2015 Medical Doctor, Doctor of Osteopathy Clanton et al 30 2012 Medical Doctor, Physical Therapist English 31 2013 Medical Doctor Kaminski et al 32 2013 Medical Doctor, Physical Therapist, Certified Athletic Trainer Lynch and Renstrom 33 1999 Medical Doctor Onieal 34 1993 Registered Nurse Richie and Izadi 35 2015 Doctor of Podiatric Medicine Smurawa and Congeni 36 2007 Medical Doctor Tassignon et al 37 2019 Physiotherapist the sport-specific movement domain. These findings support our a priori hypothesis that consensus among published expert opinions would be minimal.…”

Section: Research Team Credentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Lack of Consensus on Return-to-Sport Criteria Following Lateral Ankle Sprain: A Systematic Review of Expert Opinions

Wikstrom¹,

Mueller²,

Cain³

2020

Journal of Sport Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Lateral ankle sprains (LAS) have one of the highest recurrence rates of all musculoskeletal injuries. An emphasis on rapid return to sport (RTS) following LAS likely increases reinjury risk. Unfortunately, no set of objective RTS criteria exist for LAS, forcing practitioners to rely on their own opinion of when a patient is ready to RTS. Purpose: To determine if there was consensus among published expert opinions that could help inform an initial set of RTS criteria for LAS that could be investigated in future research. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed, CINHL, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched from inception until October 2018 using a combination of keywords. Studies were included if they listed specific RTS criteria for LAS. No assessment of methodological quality was conducted because all included papers were expert opinion papers (level 5 evidence). Extracted data included the recommended domains (eg, range of motion, balance, sport-specific movement, etc) to be assessed, specific assessments for each listed domain, and thresholds (eg, 80% of the uninjured limb) to be used to determine RTS. Consensus and partial agreement were defined, a priori, as ≥75% and 50% to 75% agreement, respectively. Evidence Synthesis: Eight domains were identified within 11 included studies. Consensus was reached regarding the need to assess sport-specific movement (n = 9, 90.9%). Partial agreement was reached for the need to assess static balance (n = 7, 63.6%). The domains of pain and swelling, patient reported outcomes, range of motion, and strength were also partially agreed on (n = 6, 54.5%). No agreement was reached on specific assessments of cutoff thresholds. Conclusions: Given consensus and partial agreement results, RTS decisions following LAS should be based on sport-specific movement, static balance, patient reported outcomes, range of motion, and strength. Future research needs to determine assessments and cutoff thresholds within these domains to minimize recurrent LAS risk.

show abstract