MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402404996 · doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12483

Return to Play After an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Collegiate Athlete: A Systematic Review Evaluating Return to Play Proportions and Associated Factors

2024· review· en· W4402404996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cortez L. Brown, Phillip R. Worts, Derek R. Dewig, G Rolle, Michael J. Ormsbee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReturn to sportAnterior cruciate ligamentAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAthletesPsychologyPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To estimate anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) return-to-play (RTP) factors and proportions across all National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) sports. DESIGN: Systematic review with prognosis and etiology components. LITERATURE SEARCH: Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases using terms related to RTP, ACLR, and NCAA for articles published up to June 30, 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles were included if RTP proportions or factors affecting RTP were reported and if the study population included NCAA collegiate athletes recovering from an ACLR. DATA SYNTHESIS: The proportion represents the total number of athletes who returned to play after ACLR over the total number of ACLR athletes from each cohort. The cumulative proportion represents the aggregated total from each included study. When eligibility information was available (ie, athletes in their final year of eligibility), RTP proportions were adjusted. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the study quality and scored by 2 raters. RESULTS: Nine studies were included. RTP criteria varied across the studies. Proportions of RTP ranged from 69% to 92%, with a cumulative RTP proportion after ACLR of 84% (628/745). The primary factors associated with the proportion of RTP were scholarship status, competitive eligibility remaining, depth chart position, and surgical graft type. CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative proportion of RTP was 84% and was associated with patient-specific and operative factors. Psychological and functional factors were not routinely reported, and rehabilitation protocols were unknown. Data were not explicitly available for any athletes outside of Division I. The criteria for RTP after ACLR varied. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):625-633. Epub 10 September 2024. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2024.12483

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical TherapySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207