The clinical utility of functional performance tests within one-year post-acl reconstruction: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A tear of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) represents a significant injury for an athlete that requires substantial time away from sport, and significant rehabilitation after reconstruction. The physical therapist is responsible to determine when a patient is capable of tolerating the physical demands of daily activities and to attempt to prevent re-injury. Physical or functional performance tests (FPTs) are one mechanism used to evaluate the athlete's physical skills and capabilities prior to returning to sports participation. The purpose of this systematic review is to critically examine the clinical utility of functional performance tests used with patients less than or equal to one year post ACL reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review of the relevant literature was performed using PRISMA guidelines. A total of twelve studies were included for analysis. RESULTS: Two independent blinded reviewers then analyzed and rated the final included articles (n=12) utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Percent overall agreement between raters for the NOS was 88% with a fixed-marginal kappa (κ) of 0.80. Of the 12 included articles, the FPTs were utilized as an outcome measure within the study design (41.7%) or studied as a measure of function (58.3%). Among those studies that used FPTs as a "measure of function" 71.4% studied a battery of FPTs, while 28.6% studied a single test. None of the studies utilized FPTs as a measure to determine readiness to return to sport. DISCUSSION: FPTs are being utilized with patients, less than or equal to one year post ACL reconstruction, either as an assessment of functional performance or as an outcome measure. No studies identified a FPT or test battery that has construct or predictive validity for "return to sport" in athletic population one-year post-ACL reconstruction. The identification of the critical elements within the return to sport construct may allow lower extremity performance tests to be developed or test batteries assembled to incorporate the appropriate tests to examine all of these elements deemed critical. Additionally the current FPTs should undergo content and predictive validation to assist the sports physical therapist in determining the readiness of the athlete for return to sport.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".