Acute Ankle Sprain Management: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".