Integrating psychological and physical assessments to obtain optimal return-to-sport outcomes after ACL reconstruction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 SPORT SCIENCES
Journal of Sports Sciences Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-15 DOI:10.1080/02640414.2025.2534224
Chien-Sheng Lo, Kuan-Chung Chen, Jui-Chi Shih, Bill Cheng, Wei-Cheng Chao
{"title":"Integrating psychological and physical assessments to obtain optimal return-to-sport outcomes after ACL reconstruction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Chien-Sheng Lo, Kuan-Chung Chen, Jui-Chi Shih, Bill Cheng, Wei-Cheng Chao","doi":"10.1080/02640414.2025.2534224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluated the relative effectiveness of using different return-to-sport (RTS) assessments to improve clinical decision-making following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), focusing on physical, psychological, and subjective measures. A network meta-analysis of 12 studies (1889 participants) assessed various RTS criteria, including the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale (psychological readiness), the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire (subjective knee function), hop test (physical function), and limb symmetry indices (LSI) for extension (EXT-LSI) and flexion (FLEX-LSI). The primary outcome was the effectiveness of these criteria in predicting successful RTS, and the secondary outcomes included dropout rates and inconsistencies in the data. The ACL-RSI scale was most effective for predicting RTS success (effect size: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.24 to 1.87). Physical tests like the hop test and LSI were moderately effective, with FLEX-LSI being the least effective. There were no significant differences in dropout rates across the RTS criteria. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of these results. Findings highlight the critical role of psychological readiness in RTS outcomes. Clinicians are encouraged to adopt a multi-dimentional approach, integrating both psychological and physical assessments, to improve decision-making and reduce the risk of re-injury after ACLR.</p>","PeriodicalId":17066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"2404-2417"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2534224","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study evaluated the relative effectiveness of using different return-to-sport (RTS) assessments to improve clinical decision-making following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), focusing on physical, psychological, and subjective measures. A network meta-analysis of 12 studies (1889 participants) assessed various RTS criteria, including the Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale (psychological readiness), the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire (subjective knee function), hop test (physical function), and limb symmetry indices (LSI) for extension (EXT-LSI) and flexion (FLEX-LSI). The primary outcome was the effectiveness of these criteria in predicting successful RTS, and the secondary outcomes included dropout rates and inconsistencies in the data. The ACL-RSI scale was most effective for predicting RTS success (effect size: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.24 to 1.87). Physical tests like the hop test and LSI were moderately effective, with FLEX-LSI being the least effective. There were no significant differences in dropout rates across the RTS criteria. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of these results. Findings highlight the critical role of psychological readiness in RTS outcomes. Clinicians are encouraged to adopt a multi-dimentional approach, integrating both psychological and physical assessments, to improve decision-making and reduce the risk of re-injury after ACLR.

整合心理和身体评估以获得ACL重建后最佳的恢复运动结果:系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。
本研究评估了使用不同的运动恢复(RTS)评估来改善前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)后临床决策的相对有效性,重点是身体,心理和主观测量。一项针对12项研究(1889名参与者)的网络荟萃分析评估了各种RTS标准,包括前交叉韧带-损伤后恢复运动(ACL-RSI)量表(心理准备)、国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)问卷(主观膝关节功能)、跳跃测试(身体功能)和肢体伸展(EXT-LSI)和屈曲(FLEX-LSI)的肢体对称指数(LSI)。主要结果是这些标准在预测RTS成功方面的有效性,次要结果包括辍学率和数据的不一致性。ACL-RSI量表对预测RTS成功最有效(效应值:1.55;95% CI: 1.24 ~ 1.87)。物理测试如跳跃测试和大规模集成电路是中等有效的,与灵活的大规模集成电路是最不有效的。在RTS标准中,辍学率没有显著差异。敏感性分析证实了这些结果的稳定性。研究结果强调了心理准备在RTS结果中的关键作用。鼓励临床医生采用多维方法,整合心理和身体评估,以改善决策并降低ACLR后再损伤的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Sports Sciences
Journal of Sports Sciences 社会科学-运动科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
147
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sports Sciences has an international reputation for publishing articles of a high standard and is both Medline and Clarivate Analytics-listed. It publishes research on various aspects of the sports and exercise sciences, including anatomy, biochemistry, biomechanics, performance analysis, physiology, psychology, sports medicine and health, as well as coaching and talent identification, kinanthropometry and other interdisciplinary perspectives. The emphasis of the Journal is on the human sciences, broadly defined and applied to sport and exercise. Besides experimental work in human responses to exercise, the subjects covered will include human responses to technologies such as the design of sports equipment and playing facilities, research in training, selection, performance prediction or modification, and stress reduction or manifestation. Manuscripts considered for publication include those dealing with original investigations of exercise, validation of technological innovations in sport or comprehensive reviews of topics relevant to the scientific study of sport.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信