MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281634094 · doi:10.1080/00913847.2022.2085505

Risk factors for Achilles tendon rupture: an updated systematic review

2022· review· en· W4281634094 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sofia A. Xergia, Charis Tsarbou, Nikolaos I. Liveris, Μaria Hadjithoma, Irene P. Tzanetakou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physician and Sportsmedicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAthletesAchilles tendonPhysical therapySystematic reviewTendinopathyRandomized controlled trialMEDLINECohort studyInternal medicineSurgeryTendon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Identifying risk factors for Achilles Tendon Rupture (ATR) is one of the first necessary steps for its prevention. This systematic review aimed to update the systematic review published in 2014 in ATR etiology. METHODOLOGY: A systematic review was carried out using PubMed, EBSCO, and ScienceDirect databases. All types of research studies (Randomized Control Trials - RCTs, Cohort studies, Case-control studies and Cross-sectional studies) that considered ATR, were eligible. The inclusion criteria for eligibility of the studies were to be written in the English language, and to include populations of men and/or women, both athletes, and non-athletes, healthy individuals, and patients. Two independent reviewers used the assessment instrument Newcastle-Ottawa Scale independently, to evaluate the quality of each selected study. Further, two reviewers worked independently to extract the study characteristics, and the GRADE methodology was used to assess the level of certainty of each risk factor. RESULTS: From 9526 studies initially identified, 19 studies were eligible for further analysis to identify risk factors for ATR. Seventeen studies were considered good quality, and two studies fair quality. Low to very low certainty of evidence was found for the following medications: steroids, quinolones, and oral bisphosphonate, as well as for other factors such as chronic tendon inflammation and Achilles' tendinopathy, spring season, diabetes, previous musculoskeletal injury, regular participation in athletic activity, hyperparathyroidism, renal failure, and genetic factors. CONCLUSIONS: The risk factors found prove that ATR is a multifactorial injury. Appropriate methodologies and well-designed studies are needed to determine the factors and their significance in ATR risk. Finally, the role of biomechanical and psychological aspects in the ATR etiology may be of interest in future studies, as we could not extract relative data in our review.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0210.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations53
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Physician and SportsmedicineSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207