Citation

Webster KE, Hewett TE. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Affiliation

Hewett Consulting, Rochester and Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, BMJ Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1136/bjsports-2019-101362

PMID

31628097

Abstract

In our recent systematic review and meta-analysis,1 one of the questions posed was: Is passing return-to-sport (RTS) test batteries associated with reduced rates of subsequent knee injury?1 The aim of this editorial is to comment on debate2 about the methodology used to avoid further confusion with regard to relevant data and conclusions that can be drawn from the existent literature. Concerns raised centred on two aspects: appraisal of risk-of-bias and pooling data from heterogenous samples, both of which impact on study selection. These are discussed separately.

Risk-of-bias (quality assessment)
For risk-of-bias assessment, two tools provided by the National Institutes of Health were used. While one could argue the semantics of using the terminology ‘risk-of-bias’ versus ‘quality assessment’—we acknowledge that we used both—the content of the assessment was clearly in line with what Capin et al2 suggest should be included in such an assessment. Full details of the assessment can be accessed in the online supplementary appendix to our article. It is possible that this appendix has been overlooked.

It must be understood that the two studies …

Language: en

Keywords

ACL; knee ACL