MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284711790 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.868474

Acute Ankle Sprain Management: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

2022· review· en· W4284711790 on OpenAlexafffund
Diego Gaddi, Angelo Mosca, Massimiliano Piatti, Daniele Munegato, Marcello Catalano, Giorgia Di Lorenzo, Marco Turati, Nicolò Zanchi, Daniele Piscitelli, Kevin K. Chui, Giovanni Zatti, Marco Bigoni

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Milano-BicoccaUniversità degli Studi di Milano-BicoccaRadford UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineAnkle sprainCochrane LibraryAnkleSystematic reviewPhysical therapyMEDLINEScopusEvidence-based medicineAlternative medicineRandomized controlled trialSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even though ankle sprains are among the most frequent musculoskeletal injuries seen in emergency departments, management of these injuries continues to lack standardization. Our objective was to carry out an umbrella review of systematic reviews to collect the most effective evidence-based treatments and to point out the state-of-the-art management for this injury. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were searched from January 2000 to September 2020. After removing duplicates and applying the eligibility criteria, based on titles and abstracts, 32 studies were screened. At the end of the process, 24 articles were included in this umbrella review with a mean score of 7.7/11 on the AMSTAR quality assessment tool. We found evidence supporting the effectiveness of non-surgical treatment in managing acute ankle sprain; moreover, functional treatment seems to be preferable to immobilization. We also found evidence supporting the use of paracetamol or opioids as effective alternatives to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to reduce pain. Furthermore, we found evidence supporting the effectiveness of manipulative and supervised exercise therapy to prevent re-injury and restore ankle dorsiflexion.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.007
Bibliometrics0.0380.033
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations43
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207