Literature DB >> 25854496

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-rehabilitation research methodological quality: a systematic review with world region comparisons.

Artur Proniewicz1, Paul Mazzone1, John Nyland2,3, Jeff Wera1, Justin Givens1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A systematic review and world region comparison of combined ACL reconstruction-rehabilitation studies was performed.
METHODS: Studies that combined ACL surgical-rehabilitative management published between January 1990 and June 2014 were evaluated. The combined terms "rehabilitation" and "anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" or "ACL reconstruction" were used to search the CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PEDro, and PubMed databases. A total of 5920 studies were initially identified. Inclusion criteria reduced this total to 299 studies that underwent abstract review. Following this, 155 studies underwent full text review and 109 met all inclusion criteria for Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) evaluation.
RESULTS: Overall, MCMS were 74.0 ± 17 (mean ± standard deviation). Europe had slightly greater MCMS than North America (P = 0.041). Specific MCMS components that displayed significant world region differences included use of an independent investigator (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.047), including a patient-completed written assessment (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.009), allowing the patient to complete the assessment without medical, surgical, or rehabilitation personnel intervention (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.009), and use of well-described subject selection or inclusion criteria (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.004). Tegner Activity Scale (P = 0.042) and VAS-Pain Scale (P = 0.007) use was greater in Europe compared with other world regions. Primary rehabilitation theme frequency was comparable between world regions (n.s.).
CONCLUSION: Regional research methodological quality differences were observed. Europe displayed a slightly greater MCMS for combined ACL reconstruction-rehabilitation studies. With this information, research groups can design better team-based approaches to ensure that study findings provide sufficient significance to foster meaningful patient care improvements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Level III.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACL; Rehabilitation; Research methodology; Surgical reconstruction; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25854496     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3588-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  14 in total

Review 1.  Anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction: a literature review.

Authors:  Charles Crawford; John Nyland; Sarah Landes; Richard Jackson; Haw Chong Chang; Akbar Nawab; David N M Caborn
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-05-30       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  An analysis of the quality of cartilage repair studies.

Authors:  Rune B Jakobsen; Lars Engebretsen; James R Slauterbeck
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 3.  Hamstring Tendon Regeneration After Harvest for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Rocco Papalia; Francesco Franceschi; Stefano D'Adamio; Lorenzo Diaz Balzani; Nicola Maffulli; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 4.  A between sex comparison of anterior-posterior knee laxity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon or hamstrings autograft: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mark V Paterno; Ashley M Weed; Timothy E Hewett
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 5.  International knee documentation committee knee survey use after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 2005-2012 systematic review and world region comparison.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Wera; John Nyland; Cameron Ghazi; Kenneth G W MacKinlay; R Cameron Henzman; Justin Givens; Jefferson C Brand
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2014-08-08       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 6.  Closure of patellar tendon defect in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Rachel M Frank; Randy Mascarenhas; Marc Haro; Nikhil N Verma; Brian J Cole; Charles A Bush-Joseph; Bernard R Bach
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 4.772

7.  Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies. Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group.

Authors:  B D Coleman; K M Khan; N Maffulli; J L Cook; J D Wark
Journal:  Scand J Med Sci Sports       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.221

8.  What I have learned about the ACL: utilizing a progressive rehabilitation scheme to achieve total knee symmetry after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  K Donald Shelbourne; Christine Klotz
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.601

Review 9.  Quadriceps function following ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation: implications for optimisation of current practices.

Authors:  Alli Gokeler; Marsha Bisschop; Anne Benjaminse; Greg D Myer; Peter Eppinga; Egbert Otten
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 10.  Surgical management of partial tears of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  Rocco Papalia; Francesco Franceschi; Biagio Zampogna; Andrea Tecame; Nicola Maffulli; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-12-23       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.