4.6 Review

Criteria-Based Return to Sport Decision-Making Following Lateral Ankle Sprain Injury: a Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

期刊

SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 49, 期 4, 页码 601-619

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-019-01071-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to identify prospective studies that used a criteria-based return to sport (RTS) decision-making process for patients with lateral ankle sprain (LAS) injury.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesThe PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, PEDro, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases were searched to 23 November 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies were included if they prospectively applied a criteria-based RTS decision-making process for patients with LAS injury, but were excluded if they merely gathered outcome measures at the RTS time point. Studies were also excluded if patients were recovering from ankle fracture, high ankle sprain, medial ankle sprain, chronic ankle instability or complex ankle injury.ResultsNo studies were identified that used a criteria-based RTS decision-making process for patients with LAS injury. We were unable to conduct a quantitative synthesis or meta-analysis, therefore we provide a narrative synthesis of relevant questionnaires, as well as clinical and functional assessments commonly used in studies retrieved in the search.ConclusionThere are currently no published evidence-based criteria to inform RTS decisions for patients with an LAS injury. Based on our narrative synthesis, we propose a number of variables that could be used to develop a criteria-based RTS decision paradigm. Future research should aim to reach consensus on these variables and apply them to actual RTS decisions within prospective study designs. Furthermore, we suggest that complex systems theory and the RTS continuum could be used to inform the development of an RTS decision-making paradigm for athletes with LAS injury.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据