MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414611966 · doi:10.1002/ksa.70080

The effectiveness of knee bracing in non‐operative soft tissue and degenerative knee injuries: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4414611966 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Daniel Bouchard, J. Raymond Gilbert, Michelle Cruickshank, Colin Kruse, Prushoth Vivekanantha, James Yan, Vickas Khanna

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHamilton Health SciencesSt. Joseph's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft tissueOrthopedic surgeryBracingOsteoarthritisOrthopedic ProceduresKnee Joint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Soft tissue and degenerative knee injuries, including anterior/posterior cruciate ligament (ACL/PCL) injuries, medial knee osteoarthritis (MKOA), and patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA), are common causes of pain and functional decline. Knee bracing is often used as part of non-operative treatment, but its clinical effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the role of bracing in improving pain, function, and preventing surgical conversion in adults with non-operatively managed knee injuries. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Emcare were searched from inception to March 2025. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of knee bracing in adults with soft tissue or degenerative knee injuries treated non-operatively. Studies focused on biomechanics, prophylaxis, surgery, or paediatric populations were excluded. Data were synthesised narratively with weighted summary statistics. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (706 patients) were included: six on ACL injuries, three PCL, three MKOA, and five PFOA. MKOA studies showed pooled improvements of +14.6 in KOOS Pain and -1.9 in VAS (SDs 1.0 and 0.5). ACL studies reported a pooled Lysholm gain of +11.8 (SD = 4.3), while PCL outcomes showed large single-study improvements (KOOS Pain +31.0, IKDC + 30.0). WOMAC scores improved in MKOA (-13.7) but declined in PFOA (-6.4). Failure (surgical conversion) was reported in 13 studies, with the highest rates in PCL (16.4%) and ACL (10.6%), and the lowest in MKOA (0%) and PFOA (4.0%). Complications were infrequently reported; skin irritation was the most common adverse event. CONCLUSION: Knee bracing demonstrated the most consistent pain and functional improvements in degenerative and PCL injuries. In contrast, outcomes in ACL injuries were more variable and associated with higher failure rates, underscoring the need for injury-specific bracing strategies. These findings emphasise the importance of patient selection, brace design, and early intervention, and support the need for higher-quality studies to guide non-operative management strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207