Fear of reinjury following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This review aims to elucidate the most commonly reported method to quantify fear of reinjury or kinesiophobia and to identify key variables that influence the degree of kinesiophobia following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: A systematic search across three databases (Pubmed, Ovid (MEDLINE), and EMBASE) was conducted from database inception to August 7th, 2022. The authors adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted according to the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and resulted in 2,213 total patients with a mean age of 27.6 years and a mean follow-up time of 36.7 months post-surgery. The mean MINORS score of the included studies was 11 out of 16 for non-comparative studies and 18 out of 24 for comparative studies. Eighty-eight percent of included studies used variations of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) to quantify kinesiophobia and 27.0% used Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI). The results of this study shows a common association between higher kinesiophobia and poor patient-reported functional status measured using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Scores, Activity of Daily Living (ADL), Quality of Life (QOL), and Sports/Recreation (S/R) subscales of Knee Osteoarthritis and Outcome Score (KOOS) and Lysholm scores. Postoperative symptoms and pain catastrophizing measured using the KOOS pain and symptom subscales and Pain Catastrophizing Score (PCS) also influenced the degree of kinesiophobia following ACLR. Patients with an increased injury to surgery time and being closer to the date of surgery postoperatively demonstrated higher levels of kinesiophobia. Less common variables included being a female patient, low preoperative and postoperative activity status and low self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: The most common methods used to report kinesiophobia following primary ACLR were variations of the TSK scale followed by ACL-RSI. The most commonly reported factors influencing higher kinesiophobia in this patient population include lower patient-reported functional status, more severe postoperative symptoms such as pain, increased injury to surgery time, and being closer to the date of surgery postoperatively. Kinesiophobia following primary ACLR is a critical element affecting post-surgical outcomes, and screening should be implemented postoperatively to potentially treat in rehabilitation and recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".