13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Let’s talk about sex (and gender) after ACL injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported activity and knee-related outcomes

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Objective

          Investigate sex/gender differences in self-reported activity and knee-related outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury.

          Design

          Systematic review with meta-analysis.

          Data sources

          Seven databases were searched in December 2021.

          Eligibility criteria

          Observational or interventional studies with self-reported activity (including return to sport) or knee-related outcomes after ACL injury.

          Results

          We included 242 studies (n=123 687, 43% females/women/girls, mean age 26 years at surgery). One hundred and six studies contributed to 1 of 35 meta-analyses (n=59 552). After ACL injury/reconstruction, very low-certainty evidence suggests females/women/girls had inferior self-reported activity (ie, return to sport, Tegner Activity Score, Marx Activity Scale) compared with males/men/boys on most (88%, 7/8) meta-analyses. Females/women/girls had 23%–25% reduced odds of returning to sport within 1-year post-ACL injury/reconstruction (12 studies, OR 0.76 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92), 1–5 years (45 studies, OR 0.75 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82) and 5–10 years (9 studies, OR 0.77 95% CI 0.57 to 1.04). Age-stratified analysis (<19 years) suggests female athletes/girls had 32% reduced odds of returning to sport compared with male athletes/boys (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.13, I 20.0%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests females/women/girls experienced inferior knee-related outcomes (eg, function, quality of life) on many (70%, 19/27) meta-analyses: standardised mean difference ranging from −0.02 (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, KOOS-activities of daily living, 9 studies, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.02) to −0.31 (KOOS-sport and recreation, 7 studies, 95% CI −0.36 to –0.26).

          Conclusions

          Very low-certainty evidence suggests inferior self-reported activity and knee-related outcomes for females/women/girls compared with males/men/boys after an ACL injury. Future studies should explore factors and design targeted interventions to improve outcomes for females/women/girls.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42021205998.

          Related collections

          Most cited references93

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

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                British Journal of Sports Medicine
                Br J Sports Med
                BMJ
                0306-3674
                1473-0480
                May 02 2023
                May 2023
                May 2023
                March 08 2023
                : 57
                : 10
                : 602-610
                Article
                10.1136/bjsports-2022-106099
                36889918
                7ad6715a-0cfa-4589-8e5b-3427f31dfbff
                © 2023
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article