MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

148 Muscle strength tests in individuals following an anterior cruciate ligament or meniscus injury: a systematic review of measurement properties (OPTIKNEE)

2022· review· en· W4310727439 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAbstracts · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSyddansk UniversitetUniversitetet i OsloLa Trobe UniversityNorges IdrettshøgskoleFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligamentMedicineACL injuryPhysical therapyMeniscusPhysical medicine and rehabilitationConcentricReliability (semiconductor)Criterion validityConstruct validitySurgeryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Introduction</h3> There is a lack of consensus on the most relevant and clinically applicable tests to evaluate knee muscle strength following a knee injury. This systematic review aimed to critically appraise and summarize the measurement properties of knee muscle strength tests in young individuals with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) or meniscus injury. <h3>Materials and Methods</h3> Studies evaluating at least one measurement property of a knee extensor or flexor strength test in individuals with an ACL or meniscus injury with a mean injury age of ≤30 years were included. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist was used to assess methodological quality. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed evidence quality. <h3>Results</h3> Thirty-four studies evaluating 30 muscle strength tests following an ACL or meniscal injury were included. Strength tests were assessed for reliability (n=8), measurement error (n=7), construct validity (n=25) and criterion validity (n=7). Concentric extensor and flexor strength tests showed sufficient ratings for two measurement properties, namely for intra-rater reliability (very low quality of evidence) and construct validity (moderate quality of evidence). Isotonic extensor and flexor strength tests displayed sufficient criterion validity (high quality of evidence). <h3>Conclusion</h3> This review highlights an important lack of evidence on measurement properties of strength tests following ACL tear and meniscus injury. Concentric strength tests are currently the most promising tests following an ACL injury. High-quality studies on measurement properties are needed to recommend muscle strength tests in research and clinical practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.240 · 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