Criteria Used to Determine Unrestricted Return to Activity After ACL Reconstruction in Pediatric and Adolescent Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The rates of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure or contralateral ACL rupture range from 17% to 30% in pediatric patients after ACL reconstruction (ACLR). A contributing factor to the high reinjury rate in this population may be the limited evidence regarding appropriate criteria for allowing unrestricted return to activity (RTA) postoperatively. Purpose: To review the literature and identify the most commonly used criteria when determining unrestricted RTA after ACLR in pediatric patients. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A search was performed of the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The authors identified studies that included pediatric patients (<19 years of age) and specified the criteria used to determine RTA after ACLR. Results: A total of 27 articles met all criteria for review, of which 13 studies only used 1 criterion when determining RTA. Objective criteria were the most common type of criteria for RTA (17 studies). Strength tests (15 studies) and hop tests (10 studies) were the most commonly used tasks when deriving RTA criteria. Only 2 studies used validated questionnaires to assess the patient's physiological readiness for RTA, and only 2 studies used an objective assessment of movement quality before RTA. Conclusion: Only 14 of the 27 reviewed studies reported using >1 criterion when determining RTA. Furthermore, few studies used patient-reported outcome measures or lower limb kinematics as RTA criteria, indicating that more research is needed to validate these metrics in the pediatric population.
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 | 0.022 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".