Perceptions, expectations and experiences of recovery before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the patient voice – a protocol for a qualitative systematic review with meta-aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are a common yet significant musculoskeletal problem and are increasingly prevalent outside of elite athlete populations. As a result, individuals may undergo ACL reconstruction (ACLR), but long-term complications frequently persist. Individuals commonly believe that post-ACLR, they will eventually return to preinjury levels of function. However, for multiple reasons, the reality is that more than half fail to reach this preinjury level. Rehabilitation has traditionally focused on physical factors, which have been researched extensively. More recently, psychological factors affecting recovery have been examined. However, most literature focuses on 'outcome', with the patient voice, in terms of their views and perceptions of ACLR neglected. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to understand individuals' perceptions, expectations and experiences pre-ACLR and post-ACLR and to understand key factors influencing this journey. Such knowledge would assist in maximising the chances of successful recovery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This meta-aggregative systematic review protocol is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and SportDiscus databases, grey literature and key journals will be searched from inception. Qualitative research of any study design that includes individuals aged 16+ years who are awaiting or have undergone ACL reconstruction will be included. Studies focusing on ACL revision, ACL repair or multiligament reconstruction surgeries will be excluded. Two independent reviewers will conduct searches, determine study eligibility, extract data, assess methodological quality (Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research) and rate the overall confidence in findings (JBI ConQual). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as presented at conferences and locally to physiotherapy teams. Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024594621.
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 | 0.108 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.003 |
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".