MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280605682 · doi:10.1177/2325967121s00468

Can a Knee Brace Prevent Acl Re-Injury: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4280605682 on OpenAlexaff
Bianca Marois, Xue Wei Tan, Thierry Pauyo, Philippe Dodin, Laurent Ballaz, Marie‐Lyne Nault

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineACL injuryBraceAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionPhysical therapyAnterior cruciate ligamentMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewMEDLINEPopulationReturn to sportEvidence-based medicineCohort studySports medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAthletesSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Recent literature shows a rate of ACL retear after ACLR when returning to sport between 8% and 23%, depending on the population and clinical implications. The risk of a second injury is higher in patients who (1) return to cutting and pivoting sports, (2) do not meet the return to sport criteria before returning to sport, and (3) returning to pivoting sports earlier than 9 months after ACLR. A second ACL injury, either a graft rupture or contralateral ACL injury after ACLR, negatively impacts knee function, quality of life, accelerates degenerative changes in the knee and challenges an athlete’s career. Purpose: This systematic review aimed to investigate whether a knee brace when returning to sport (RTS) could prevent a second injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods: This study was registered with the PROSPERO database and followed PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, Ovid Medline, Ovid All EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, EBSCO Sportdiscus and ISI Web of Science databases for meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies published before July 2020 was undertaken. The inclusion criteria were: (1) Comparing with and without brace at RTS, (2) follow up of at least 18 months after ACLR, (3) reinjury rates included in the outcomes. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Quality appraisal analyses were performed for each study using the Cochrane Collaboration tools for randomized and nonrandomized trials. Results: A total of 1196 patients in 3 studies were included. One study showed a lower rate of reinjury when wearing a knee brace at RTS. One study found the knee brace to have a significant protective effect for younger patient. (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Current data cannot support that using a knee brace when RTS will decrease the rate of reinjury after ACL reconstruction. [Table: see text][Figure: see text][Table: see text][Table: see text][Table: see text][Table: see text]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.011
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207