7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Can a Knee Brace Prevent ACL Reinjury: A Systematic Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This systematic review aimed to investigate whether the use of a knee brace when returning to sport (RTS) could prevent a second injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). This study was registered with the PROSPERO database and followed PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, Ovid Medline, Ovid All EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, EBSCO Sportdiscus and ISI Web of Science databases for meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies published before July 2020 was undertaken. The inclusion criteria were: (1) Comparing with and without a brace at RTS, (2) follow up of at least 18 months after ACLR, (3) reinjury rates included in the outcomes. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Quality appraisal analyses were performed for each study using the Cochrane Collaboration tools for randomized and nonrandomized trials. A total of 1196 patients in three studies were included. One study showed a lower rate of reinjury when wearing a knee brace at RTS. One study found the knee brace to have a significant protective effect for younger patients (≤17 years). The effectiveness of knee bracing when RTS remains ambiguous. Current data cannot support that using a knee brace when RTS will decrease the rate of reinjury after ACL reconstruction.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

            Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

              Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                17 July 2021
                July 2021
                : 18
                : 14
                : 7611
                Affiliations
                [1 ]CHU Ste-Justine, 7905-3175 Côte Ste-Catherine, Montréal, QC H3T 1C5, Canada; marois.bianca@ 123456gmail.com (B.M.); philippe.dodin.hsj@ 123456ssss.gouv.qc.ca (P.D.); laurent.ballaz@ 123456gmail.com (L.B.)
                [2 ]Department of Surgery, Université de Montréal, 2900 boul. Edouard-Montpetit, Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada; xue.wei.tan@ 123456umontreal.ca
                [3 ]Shriners Hospital, McGill University Health Center, 1003 Decarie Blvd, Montreal, QC H4A 0A9, Canada; Tpauyo@ 123456gmail.com
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: fabienne.bienvenue.hsj@ 123456ssss.gouv.ca ; Tel.: +1-514-345-6672
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1184-9670
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8024-0527
                Article
                ijerph-18-07611
                10.3390/ijerph18147611
                8303933
                34300065
                f3394b4a-e3c1-4e3a-acf9-f28bf66429ab
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 26 May 2021
                : 14 July 2021
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                knee brace,incidence rate,anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction,second injury,re-tear

                Comments

                Comment on this article