| Title |
Can Clinical Evaluation Predict Return to Sport after Acute Hamstring Injuries? A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-016-0639-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lotte Schut, Arnlaug Wangensteen, Jolanda Maaskant, Johannes L. Tol, Roald Bahr, Maarten Moen |
| Abstract |
The current literature on the value of clinical evaluation for predicting time to return to sport (RTS) after acute hamstring injuries has not been systematically summarised. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the prognostic value of clinical findings (patient history and physical examination) for time to RTS after acute hamstring injuries in athletes. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library were searched between October 2014 and August 2015. Studies evaluating patient history and/or physical assessment findings as possible predictors for time to RTS (described in days or weeks) following acute hamstring injuries in athletes were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently screened the search results and assessed risk of bias using the modified Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for quality appraisal of prognosis studies. We used a best-evidence synthesis to determine the level of evidence. Sixteen studies were included, of which one study had a low risk of bias and 15 had a high risk of bias. Moderate evidence for an association with time to RTS was found for three clinical findings (visual analogue scale; pain at time of injury, self-predicted time to RTS and clinician predicted time to RTS). There was limited evidence for an association with time to RTS for seven clinical findings (muscle pain during everyday activities, popping sound at injury, forced to stop within 5 min, visual bruising at the site of injury, width (cm) of tenderness to palpation, pain on trunk flexion and pain on active knee flexion initially after injury). The remaining clinical findings revealed either conflicting evidence or limited evidence for an association with time to RTS. There is at present no strong evidence that any clinical finding at baseline provides a valuable prognosis for time to RTS after an acute hamstring injury. There is moderate evidence that visual analogue scale pain at time of injury and predictions for time to RTS by the patient and the clinician are associated with time to RTS. The methodological quality of the current literature is characterised by a substantial risk of bias and reporting of RTS definitions and criteria for RTS were inconsistent. We provide recommendations that can guide the design of future studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 3 | 14% |
| United States | 3 | 14% |
| Australia | 3 | 14% |
| Monaco | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 50% |
| Scientists | 7 | 32% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 148 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 13% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Researcher | 8 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 13% |
| Unknown | 53 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 33 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 54 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,479,574
of 25,758,211 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,544
of 2,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,962
of 325,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#30
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,124 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.