Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Knee kinematics and joint moments during gait following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hart, Harvi F, Culvenor, Adam G, Collins, Natalie J, Ackland, David C, Cowan, Sallie M, Machotka, Zuzana, Crossley, Kay M·2016·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Background: Abnormal gait after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) may contribute to development and/or progression of knee osteoarthritis. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of knee kinematics and joint moments during walking after ACLR. Methods: We searched seven electronic databases and reference lists of relevant papers, for cross-sectional, human-based observational studies comparing knee joint kinematics and moments during level walking in individuals with ACLR, with the uninjured contralateral knee or healthy individuals as a control. Two independent reviewers appraised methodological quality (modified Downs and Black scale). Where possible, data were pooled by time post-ACLR (RevMan), otherwise narrative synthesis was undertaken. Results: Thirty-four studies were included. Meta-analysis revealed significant sagittal plane deficits in ACLR knees. We found greater knee flexion angles (standardised mean difference: 1.06; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.74) and joint moments (1.61; 0.87 to 2.35) <6 months post-ACLR, compared to healthy controls. However, lower peak knee flexion angles were identified 1–3 years (−2.21; −3.16 to −1.26) and ≥3 years post-ACLR (−1.38, −2.14 to −0.62), and lower knee flexion moment 6–12 months post-ACLR (−0.76; −1.40 to −0.12). Pooled data provided strong evidence of no difference in peak knee adduction moment >3 years after ACLR (vs healthy controls) (0.09; −0.63 to 0.81). No transverse plane conclusions could be drawn. Conclusions: Sagittal plane biomechanics, rather than the knee adduction moment, appear to be more relevant post-ACLR. Better understanding of sagittal plane biomechanics is necessary for optimal post-operative recovery, and to potentially prevent early onset and progression of knee OA after ACLR. Trial registration number: PROSPERO systematic review protocol registration number CRD4201400882 2.

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 · 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094797

Cites

47 of 47 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

Show all 47 references

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Hart, H. F., Culvenor, A. G., Collins, N. J., Ackland, D. C., Cowan, S. M., Machotka, Z., & Crossley, K. M.
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-08-11
Volume
50
Issue
10
Pages
597-612
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W2163509391
Cited by
264
References
47
FWCI
3.31
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Knee kinematics and joint moments during gait following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094797
The paper
Hart, H. F., Culvenor, A. G., Collins, N. J., Ackland, D. C., Cowan, S. M., Machotka, Z., & Crossley, K. M. (2016). Knee kinematics and joint moments during gait following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094797

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.