Immobilisation and functional treatment for acute lateral ankle ligament injuries in adults
Dossier post-publication
Source : Retraction Watch, jointe par DOI. OpenAlex consigne la rétractation dans is_retracted, un booléen sur un espace d'états à au moins quatre valeurs ; il ne peut donc exprimer ni une expression de préoccupation, ni une correction, ni un rétablissement, et les rapporte comme false, ce qui se lit comme « rien à signaler ».
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Acute lateral ankle ligament injuries (ankle sprains) are common problems in acute medical care. The treatment variation observed for the acutely injured lateral ankle ligament complex suggests a lack of evidence-based management strategies for this problem. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of methods of immobilisation for acute lateral ankle ligament injuries and to compare immobilisation with functional treatment methods. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group specialised register (December 2001); the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-May 2000), EMBASE (1988-May 2000), reference lists of articles, and contacted organisations and researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing either different types of immobilisation or immobilisation versus functional treatments for injuries to the lateral ligament complex of the ankle in adults were included. Trials which investigated the treatment of chronic instability or post-surgical treatment were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted by two authors. Where appropriate, results of comparable studies were pooled using fixed effects models. Individual and pooled statistics were reported as relative risks with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes and weighted (WMD) or standardised (SMD) mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcome measures. Heterogeneity between trials was tested using a standard chi-squared test. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one trials involving 2184 participants were included. The mean validity score of the included trials increased from 9.1 (SD 3.0) to 10 (SD 2.9) after retrieving further information (maximum 18 points). Statistically significant differences in favour of functional treatment when compared with immobilisation were found for seven outcome measures: more patients returned to sport in the long term (relative risk (RR) 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 2.86); the time taken to return to sport was shorter (WMD 4.88 (days), 95% CI 1.50 to 8.25); more patients had returned to work at short term follow-up (RR 5.75, 95% CI 1.01 to 32.71); the time taken to return to work was shorter (WMD 8.23 days, 95% CI 6.31 to 10.16); fewer patients suffered from persistent swelling at short term follow-up (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.59); fewer patients suffered from objective instability as tested by stress X-ray (WMD 2.60, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.96); and patients treated functionally were more satisfied with their treatment (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.07). A separate analysis of trials that scored 50 per cent or more in quality assessment found a similar result for time to return to work only (WMD (days) 12.89, 95% CI 7.10 to 18.67). No significant differences between varying types of immobilisation, immobilisation and physiotherapy or no treatment were found, apart from one trial where patients returned to work sooner after treatment with a soft cast. In all analyses performed, no results were significantly in favour of immobilisation. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Functional treatment appears to be the favourable strategy for treating acute ankle sprains when compared with immobilisation. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as most of the differences are not significant after exclusion of the low quality trials. Many trials were poorly reported and there was variety amongst the functional treatments evaluated.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».