Let’s talk about sex (and gender) after ACL injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported activity and knee-related outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Investigate sex/gender differences in self-reported activity and knee-related outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources Seven databases were searched in December 2021. Eligibility criteria Observational or interventional studies with self-reported activity (including return to sport) or knee-related outcomes after ACL injury. Results We included 242 studies (n=123 687, 43% females/women/girls, mean age 26 years at surgery). One hundred and six studies contributed to 1 of 35 meta-analyses (n=59 552). After ACL injury/reconstruction, very low-certainty evidence suggests females/women/girls had inferior self-reported activity (ie, return to sport, Tegner Activity Score, Marx Activity Scale) compared with males/men/boys on most (88%, 7/8) meta-analyses. Females/women/girls had 23%–25% reduced odds of returning to sport within 1-year post-ACL injury/reconstruction (12 studies, OR 0.76 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92), 1–5 years (45 studies, OR 0.75 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82) and 5–10 years (9 studies, OR 0.77 95% CI 0.57 to 1.04). Age-stratified analysis (<19 years) suggests female athletes/girls had 32% reduced odds of returning to sport compared with male athletes/boys (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.13, I 2 0.0%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests females/women/girls experienced inferior knee-related outcomes (eg, function, quality of life) on many (70%, 19/27) meta-analyses: standardised mean difference ranging from −0.02 (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, KOOS-activities of daily living, 9 studies, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.02) to −0.31 (KOOS-sport and recreation, 7 studies, 95% CI −0.36 to –0.26). Conclusions Very low-certainty evidence suggests inferior self-reported activity and knee-related outcomes for females/women/girls compared with males/men/boys after an ACL injury. Future studies should explore factors and design targeted interventions to improve outcomes for females/women/girls. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021205998.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".