| Title |
Factors Contributing to Chronic Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Systematic Reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-017-0781-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cassandra Thompson, Siobhan Schabrun, Rick Romero, Andrea Bialocerkowski, Jaap van Dieen, Paul Marshall |
| Abstract |
Many factors are thought to contribute to chronic ankle instability (CAI). Multiple systematic reviews have synthesised the available evidence to identify the primary contributing factors. However, readers are now faced with several systematic reviews that present conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to establish the statistical significance and effect size of primary factors contributing to CAI and to identify likely reasons for inconsistencies in the literature. Relevant health databases were searched: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Systematic reviews were included if they answered a focused research question, clearly defined the search strategy criteria and study selection/inclusion and completed a comprehensive search of the literature. Included reviews needed to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and needed to review observational studies of factors and/or characteristics of persons with CAI, with or without meta-analysis. There was no language restriction. Studies using a non-systematic review methodology (e.g. primary studies and narrative reviews) were excluded. Methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the modified R-AMSTAR tool. Meta-analysis on included primary studies was performed. Only 17% of primary studies measured a clearly defined CAI population. There is strong evidence to support the contribution of dynamic balance, peroneal reaction time and eversion strength deficits and moderate evidence for proprioception and static balance deficits to non-specific ankle instability. Evidence from previous systematic reviews does not accurately reflect the CAI population. For treatment of non-specific ankle instability, clinicians should focus on dynamic balance, reaction time and strength deficits; however, these findings may not be translated to the CAI population. Research should be updated with an adequately controlled CAI population. PROSPERO 2016, CRD42016032592. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 13 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 8% |
| Australia | 7 | 8% |
| Spain | 7 | 8% |
| Canada | 4 | 5% |
| Brazil | 3 | 4% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Croatia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 34 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 59 | 69% |
| Scientists | 21 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 341 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 341 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 54 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 54 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 5% |
| Other | 58 | 17% |
| Unknown | 111 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 71 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 62 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 58 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 9 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 1% |
| Other | 21 | 6% |
| Unknown | 116 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. 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 26 November 2022.
All research outputs
#310,244
of 25,168,110 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#297
of 2,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,619
of 321,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#11
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,168,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,896 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 321,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.