↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of Nonsurgical Interventions for Anterior Knee Pain

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
381 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy of Nonsurgical Interventions for Anterior Knee Pain
Published in
Sports Medicine, November 2012
DOI 10.2165/11594460-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie J. Collins, Leanne M. Bisset, Kay M. Crossley, Bill Vicenzino

Abstract

Anterior knee pain is a chronic condition that presents frequently to sports medicine clinics, and can have a long-term impact on participation in physical activity. Conceivably, effective early management may prevent chronicity and facilitate physical activity. Although a variety of nonsurgical interventions have been advocated, previous systematic reviews have consistently been unable to reach conclusions to support their use. Considering a decade has lapsed since publication of the most recent data in these reviews, it is timely to provide an updated synthesis of the literature to assist sports medicine practitioners in making informed, evidence-based decisions. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the evidence for nonsurgical interventions for anterior knee pain. A comprehensive search strategy was used to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Pre-CINAHL, PEDro, PubMed, SportDiscus, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, and the full Cochrane Library, while reference lists of included papers and previous systematic reviews were hand searched. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were randomized clinical trials that used a measure of pain to evaluate at least one nonsurgical intervention over at least 2 weeks in participants with anterior knee pain. A modified version of the PEDro scale was used to rate methodological quality and risk of bias. Effect size calculation and meta-analyses were based on random effects models. Of 48 suitable studies, 27 studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias were included. There was minimal opportunity for meta-analysis because of heterogeneity of interventions, comparators and follow-up times. Meta-analysis of high-quality clinical trials supports the use of a 6-week multimodal physiotherapy programme (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.08, 95% CI 0.73, 1.43), but does not support the addition of electromyography biofeedback to an exercise programme in the short-term (4 weeks: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.64, 0.21; 8-12 weeks: SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.65, 0.20). Individual study data showed beneficial effects for foot orthoses with and without multimodal physiotherapy (vs flat inserts), exercise (vs control), closed chain exercises (vs open chain exercises), patella taping in conjunction with exercise (vs exercise alone) and acupuncture (vs control). Findings suggest that, in implementing evidence-based practice for the nonsurgical management of anterior knee pain, sports medicine practitioners should prescribe local, proximal and distal components of multimodal physiotherapy in the first instance for suitable patients, and then consider foot orthoses or acupuncture as required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 381 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 373 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 17%
Researcher 41 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 41 11%
Other 40 10%
Student > Bachelor 36 9%
Other 91 24%
Unknown 68 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 148 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 69 18%
Sports and Recreations 32 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 4%
Engineering 9 2%
Other 20 5%
Unknown 89 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 September 2019.
All research outputs
#8,262,107
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#2,247
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,375
of 285,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#484
of 783 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 285,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 783 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.