Lotte Schut1, Arnlaug Wangensteen2,3, Jolanda Maaskant4,5, Johannes L Tol6,7,8, Roald Bahr6,9, Maarten Moen8,10. 1. Medicort Specialists in Physical Therapy, Naarden, The Netherlands. 2. Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar. arnlaug.wangensteen@nih.no. 3. Department of Sports Medicine, Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Norwegian School of Sports Science, Sognsveien 220, Ullevål stadion, PB 4014, Oslo, Norway. arnlaug.wangensteen@nih.no. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Medical Faculty, Academic Medical Center and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. ACHIEVE Centre of Applied Research, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar. 7. Academic Center for Evidence Sports Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. The Sports Physician Group, OLVG West, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Sports Medicine, Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Norwegian School of Sports Science, Sognsveien 220, Ullevål stadion, PB 4014, Oslo, Norway. 10. Department of Sports Medicine, Bergman Clinics, Naarden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current literature on the value of clinical evaluation for predicting time to return to sport (RTS) after acute hamstring injuries has not been systematically summarised. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the prognostic value of clinical findings (patient history and physical examination) for time to RTS after acute hamstring injuries in athletes. DATA SOURCES: The databases PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library were searched between October 2014 and August 2015. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies evaluating patient history and/or physical assessment findings as possible predictors for time to RTS (described in days or weeks) following acute hamstring injuries in athletes were eligible for inclusion. DATA ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the search results and assessed risk of bias using the modified Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for quality appraisal of prognosis studies. We used a best-evidence synthesis to determine the level of evidence. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, of which one study had a low risk of bias and 15 had a high risk of bias. Moderate evidence for an association with time to RTS was found for three clinical findings (visual analogue scale; pain at time of injury, self-predicted time to RTS and clinician predicted time to RTS). There was limited evidence for an association with time to RTS for seven clinical findings (muscle pain during everyday activities, popping sound at injury, forced to stop within 5 min, visual bruising at the site of injury, width (cm) of tenderness to palpation, pain on trunk flexion and pain on active knee flexion initially after injury). The remaining clinical findings revealed either conflicting evidence or limited evidence for an association with time to RTS. CONCLUSION: There is at present no strong evidence that any clinical finding at baseline provides a valuable prognosis for time to RTS after an acute hamstring injury. There is moderate evidence that visual analogue scale pain at time of injury and predictions for time to RTS by the patient and the clinician are associated with time to RTS. The methodological quality of the current literature is characterised by a substantial risk of bias and reporting of RTS definitions and criteria for RTS were inconsistent. We provide recommendations that can guide the design of future studies.
BACKGROUND: The current literature on the value of clinical evaluation for predicting time to return to sport (RTS) after acute hamstring injuries has not been systematically summarised. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the prognostic value of clinical findings (patient history and physical examination) for time to RTS after acute hamstring injuries in athletes. DATA SOURCES: The databases PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library were searched between October 2014 and August 2015. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies evaluating patient history and/or physical assessment findings as possible predictors for time to RTS (described in days or weeks) following acute hamstring injuries in athletes were eligible for inclusion. DATA ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the search results and assessed risk of bias using the modified Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for quality appraisal of prognosis studies. We used a best-evidence synthesis to determine the level of evidence. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, of which one study had a low risk of bias and 15 had a high risk of bias. Moderate evidence for an association with time to RTS was found for three clinical findings (visual analogue scale; pain at time of injury, self-predicted time to RTS and clinician predicted time to RTS). There was limited evidence for an association with time to RTS for seven clinical findings (muscle pain during everyday activities, popping sound at injury, forced to stop within 5 min, visual bruising at the site of injury, width (cm) of tenderness to palpation, pain on trunk flexion and pain on active knee flexion initially after injury). The remaining clinical findings revealed either conflicting evidence or limited evidence for an association with time to RTS. CONCLUSION: There is at present no strong evidence that any clinical finding at baseline provides a valuable prognosis for time to RTS after an acute hamstring injury. There is moderate evidence that visual analogue scale pain at time of injury and predictions for time to RTS by the patient and the clinician are associated with time to RTS. The methodological quality of the current literature is characterised by a substantial risk of bias and reporting of RTS definitions and criteria for RTS were inconsistent. We provide recommendations that can guide the design of future studies.
Authors: Cristiano Eirale; Abdulaziz Farooq; Faten A Smiley; Johannes L Tol; Hakim Chalabi Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Robert-Jan De Vos; Gustaaf Reurink; Gert-Jan Goudswaard; Maarten H Moen; Adam Weir; Johannes L Tol Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Gustaaf Reurink; Elisabeth G Brilman; Robert-Jan de Vos; Mario Maas; Maarten H Moen; Adam Weir; Gert Jan Goudswaard; Johannes L Tol Journal: Sports Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Tyler J Collings; Matthew N Bourne; Rod S Barrett; William du Moulin; Jack T Hickey; Laura E Diamond Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 11.136