Cited by 4,613Knee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFoot and Ankle SurgeryMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Rating Systems in the Evaluation of Knee Ligament Injuries

TEGNER, YELVERTON, LYSHOLM, JACK·1985·Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Abstract

Many different methods of evaluating disability after knee ligament injury exist. Most of them differ in design. Some are based on only patients' symptoms. Other include patients' symptoms, activity grading, performance in a test, and clinical findings. The rating in these evaluating systems can be either numerical, as in a score, or binary, with yes/no answers. Comparison between a symptom-related score and a score of more complex design showed that the symptom-related score gave a more differentiated picture of the disability. It was also shown that the binary rating system gave less detailed information than a score and that differences in a binary rating can depend on at what level the symptoms are regarded as "significant." A new activity grading scale, where work and sport activities were graded numerically, was constructed as complement to the functional score. When evaluating knee ligament injuries, stability testing, functional knee score, performance test, and activity grading are all important. However, the relative importance varies during the course of treatment, and therefore they should not all be included in one and the same score.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00003086-198509000-00007

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LCA holds significant potential to uncover complicated recovery profiles following ACL injuries.

    “Building on progress in biopsychosocial characterization, recent developments in person-centered statistical methodologies, particularly latent class analysis (LCA), hold significant potential to uncover complicated recovery profiles following ACL injuries.21,27,35,42,53”

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
TEGNER, Y., & LYSHOLM, J.
Affiliations
Linköping University Hospital (SE)
Venue
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
Published
1985-09
Volume
198
Issue
198
Pages
42-49
ISSN
0009-921X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057208793
Cited by
4,613
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 159 · 2025: 238 · 2024: 264 · 2023: 239 · 2022: 237 · 2021: 247 · 2020: 233 · 2019: 216 · 2018: 189 · 2017: 205 · 2016: 205 · 2015: 193 · 2014: 219 · 2013: 194 · 2012: 185
FWCI
14.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Foot and Ankle Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
knee ligament injuries, disability assessment, rating systems, stability testing, performance testing
MeSH terms
Adult, Athletic Injuries, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Joint Instability, Knee Injuries, Knee Joint, Ligaments, Articular, Male, Sports, Stress, Mechanical

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