Literature DB >> 22488278

Discriminating between copers and people with chronic ankle instability.

Erik A Wikstrom1, Mark D Tillman, Terese L Chmielewski, James H Cauraugh, Keith E Naugle, Paul A Borsa.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Differences in various outcome measures have been identified between people who have sprained their ankles but have no residual symptoms (copers) and people with chronic ankle instability (CAI). However, the diagnostic utility of the reported outcome measures has rarely been determined. Identifying outcome measures capable of predicting who is less likely to develop CAI could improve rehabilitation protocols and increase the efficiency of these measures.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic utility and cutoff scores of perceptual, mechanical, and sensorimotor outcome measures between copers and people with CAI by using receiver operating characteristic curves.
DESIGN: Case-control study.
SETTING: Sports medicine research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four copers (12 men, 12 women; age = 20.8 ± 1.5 years, height = 173 ± 11 cm, mass = 78 ± 27 kg) and 24 people with CAI (12 men, 12 women; age = 21.7 ± 2.8 years, height = 175 ± 13 cm, mass = 71 ± 13 kg) participated. INTERVENTION(S): Self-reported disability questionnaires, radiographic images, and a single-legged hop stabilization test. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Perceptual outcomes included scores on the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI), FADI-Sport, and a self-report questionnaire of ankle function. Mechanically, talar position was quantified by measuring the distance from the anterior tibia to the anterior talus in the sagittal plane. Sensorimotor outcomes were the dynamic postural stability index and directional indices, which were calculated during a single-legged hop stabilization task.
RESULTS: Perceptual outcomes demonstrated diagnostic accuracy (range, 0.79-0.91), with 95% confidence intervals ranging from 0.65 to 1.00. Sensorimotor outcomes also were able to discriminate between copers and people with CAI but with less accuracy (range, 0.69-0.70), with 95% confidence intervals ranging from 0.37 to 0.86. The mechanical outcome demonstrated poor diagnostic accuracy (0.52).
CONCLUSIONS: The greatest diagnostic utility scores were achieved by the self-assessed disability questionnaires, which indicated that perceptual outcomes had the greatest ability to accurately predict people who became copers after their initial injuries. However, the diversity of outcome measures that discriminated between copers and people with CAI indicated that the causal mechanism of CAI is probably multifactorial.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22488278      PMCID: PMC3418124          DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-47.2.136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Athl Train        ISSN: 1062-6050            Impact factor:   2.860


  30 in total

Review 1.  Motor control strategies revealed in the structure of motor variability.

Authors:  Mark L Latash; John P Scholz; Gregor Schöner
Journal:  Exerc Sport Sci Rev       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 6.230

2.  Dynamic postural stability deficits in subjects with self-reported ankle instability.

Authors:  Erik A Wikstrom; Mark D Tillman; Terese L Chmielewski; James H Cauraugh; Paul A Borsa
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.411

3.  Balance measures for discriminating between functionally unstable and stable ankles.

Authors:  Scott E Ross; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Michael T Gross; Bing Yu
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.411

Review 4.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems.

Authors:  J A Swets
Journal:  Science       Date:  1988-06-03       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Long-term follow-up of inversion trauma of the ankle.

Authors:  R A Verhagen; G de Keizer; C N van Dijk
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Functional-Performance Deficits in Volunteers With Functional Ankle Instability.

Authors:  Carrie L Docherty; Brent L Arnold; Bruce M Gansneder; Shepard Hurwitz; Joseph Gieck
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Laxity, instability, and functional outcome after ACL injury: copers versus noncopers.

Authors:  M E Eastlack; M J Axe; L Snyder-Mackler
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 5.411

8.  Functional performance testing in participants with functional ankle instability and in a healthy control group.

Authors:  Amanda S Buchanan; Carrie L Docherty; John Schrader
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Ligament laxity following inversion injury with and without chronic ankle instability.

Authors:  Tricia J Hubbard
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.827

10.  Statistics review 13: receiver operating characteristic curves.

Authors:  Viv Bewick; Liz Cheek; Jonathan Ball
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2004-11-04       Impact factor: 9.097

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Minimum reporting standards for copers in chronic ankle instability research.

Authors:  Erik A Wikstrom; Cathleen N Brown
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  INFLUENCE OF INJURY ON DYNAMIC POSTURAL CONTROL IN RUNNERS.

Authors:  Stacey Meardon; Anna Klusendorf; Thomas Kernozek
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2016-06

3.  Author's Reply to Liu et al.: "important issues concerning use of the term 'copers' in chronic ankle instability research".

Authors:  Erik A Wikstrom; Cathleen N Brown
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 11.136

4.  Ability of functional performance assessments to discriminate athletes with and without chronic ankle instability : a case-control study.

Authors:  Madhura S Jamsandekar; Vivek Dineshbhai Patel; Ashish J Prabhakar; Charu Eapen; Justin W L Keogh
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 3.061

5.  Neural Excitability and Joint Laxity in Chronic Ankle Instability, Coper, and Control Groups.

Authors:  Samantha Bowker; Masafumi Terada; Abbey C Thomas; Brian G Pietrosimone; Claire E Hiller; Phillip A Gribble
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 6.  Selection criteria for patients with chronic ankle instability in controlled research: a position statement of the International Ankle Consortium.

Authors:  Phillip A Gribble; Eamonn Delahunt; Christopher M Bleakley; Brian Caulfield; Carrie L Docherty; Daniel Tik-Pui Fong; François Fourchet; Jay Hertel; Claire E Hiller; Thomas W Kaminski; Patrick O McKeon; Kathryn M Refshauge; Philip van der Wees; William Vicenzino; Erik A Wikstrom
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  A Comparison of the Foot and Ankle Condition between Elite Athletes and Non-athletes.

Authors:  Hyeyoung Kim; Eunjung Chung; Byoung-Hee Lee
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2013-11-20

8.  Differences between mechanically stable and unstable chronic ankle instability subgroups when examined by arthrometer and FAAM-G.

Authors:  Heinz Lohrer; Tanja Nauck; Dominic Gehring; Sabrina Wissler; Bela Braag; Albert Gollhofer
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2015-03-08       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  The Cut-Off Score of Four Clinical Tests to Quantify Balance Impairment in Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability.

Authors:  Nontawit Udompanich; Kanok-On Thanasootr; Raoyrin Chanavirut; Uraiwan Chatchawan; Torkamol Hunsawong
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2021-08-26

10.  Corticospinal activity during a single-leg stance in people with chronic ankle instability.

Authors:  Masafumi Terada; Kyle B Kosik; Ryan S McCann; Colin Drinkard; Phillip A Gribble
Journal:  J Sport Health Sci       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 7.179

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.