Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Surgical versus conservative treatment for acute injuries of the lateral ligament complex of the ankle in adults

Kerkhoffs, Gino MMJ, Handoll, Helen HG, de Bie, Rob, Rowe, Brian H, Struijs, Peter AA·2007·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ankle sprains are one of the most commonly treated musculoskeletal injuries. The three main treatment modalities for acute lateral ankle ligament injuries are immobilisation with plaster cast or splint, 'functional treatment' comprising early mobilisation and use of an external support (e.g. ankle brace), and surgical repair or reconstruction. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare surgical versus conservative treatment for acute injuries of the lateral ligament complex of the ankle in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (January 2006), the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), EMBASE, CINAHL and reference lists of articles, and contacted researchers in the field. This review is considered updated to January 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing surgical with conservative interventions for treating ankle sprains in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where appropriate, results of comparable studies were pooled. We performed sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the findings. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty trials were included. These involved a total of 2562 mostly young active adult males. All trials had methodological weaknesses. Specifically, concealment of allocation was confirmed in only one trial. Data for pooling individual outcomes were only available for a maximum of 12 trials and under 60% of participants. The findings of statistically significant differences in favour of the surgical treatment group for the four primary outcomes (non-return to pre-injury level of sports; ankle sprain recurrence; long-term pain; subjective or functional instability) when using the fixed-effect model were not robust when using the random-effects model, nor on the removal of one low quality (quasi-randomised) trial that had more extreme results. A corresponding drop in the I(2) statistics showed the remaining trials to be more homogeneous. The functional implications of the statistically significantly higher incidence of objective instability in conservatively treated trial participants are uncertain. There was some limited evidence for longer recovery times, and higher incidences of ankle stiffness, impaired ankle mobility and complications in the surgical treatment group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence available from randomised controlled trials to determine the relative effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatment for acute injuries of the lateral ligament complex of the ankle. High quality randomised controlled trials of primary surgical repair versus the best available conservative treatment for well-defined injuries are required.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd000380.pub2

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
Kerkhoffs, G. M., Handoll, H. H., de Bie, R., Rowe, B. H., & Struijs, P. A.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-04-18
Issue
2
Pages
CD000380-CD000380
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1950841421
Cited by
308
References
3
FWCI
20.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.