Cited by 174Knee injuries and reconstruction techniquesSports injuries and preventionFoot and Ankle Surgery

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

When Is It Safe to Return to Sport After ACL Reconstruction? Reviewing the Criteria

Open access
Kaplan, Yonatan, Witvrouw, Erik·2019·Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach

Abstract

Context: There is an ever-increasing trend toward sports, fitness, and recreation activities, so the incidence of anterior cruciate ligament sports injuries has increased. Perhaps the greatest challenge for sports clinicians is to return the injured athlete back to his/her original sport at an even greater level of functional ability than preinjury. For this, rigorous and well-researched criteria are needed. Evidence Acquisition: Using medical subject headings and free-text words, an electronic search was conducted up to October 2018. Subject-specific search was based on the terms return to play and return to sport in combination with guidelines, criteria, and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Study Design: Descriptive review. Level of Evidence: Level 2. Results: Five principal criteria were found, including psychological factors, performance/functional tests, strength tests, time, and modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors. Conclusion: The psychological readiness of the player is a major factor in successful safe return to sport (SRTS) decision making. Although strength, performance, and functional tests presently form the mainstay of SRTS criteria, there exists very little scientific evidence for their validity. More protection should be provided to athletes with known risk factors. Movement quality is important, if not more important than the quantifiable measures. As a result of the significantly high rerupture rate in young individuals, delayed SRTS should be considered preferably beyond 9 months postsurgery.

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 · 10.1177/1941738119846502

Cites

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

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?

  • Clinicians use objective factors such as age, time from injury, and strength symmetry in clinical decision-making for return to sport after ACLR; however, these alone do not fully explain why some athletes do not return to sport despite achieving adequate physical rehabilitation.

    “Clinicians use objective factors such as age, time from injury, and strength symmetry in clinical decision-making for return to sport after ACLR5–11; however, these alone do not fully explain why some athletes do not return to sport despite achieving adequate physical rehabilitation.12–15”

    From Determinants of Psychological Readiness to Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. 10.1186/1471-2474-11-281 · DOI
  2. 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000290 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.4137/CMAMD.S14386 · DOI
  4. 10.1177/0363546514557245 · DOI
  5. 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096278 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091203 · DOI
  7. 10.1136/bjsm.2010.076364 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.21 · DOI
  9. Bien DP, 2015, Int J Sports Phys Ther, 10, 256
  10. 10.1016/j.ptsp.2014.05.001 · DOI
  11. 10.1177/2325967114563664 · DOI
  12. 10.1080/14763141.2016.1174286 · DOI
  13. 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096209 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/s00167-010-1113-5 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/s00167-013-2699-1 · DOI
  16. 10.1249/mss.0b013e318149332d · DOI
  17. 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096031 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.11.013 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/s00167-015-3529-4 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.csm.2016.08.001 · DOI
  21. 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095908 · DOI
  22. 10.1177/0363546515578249 · DOI
  23. 10.1177/2325967115S00129 · DOI
  24. 10.1080/15438627.2012.680633 · DOI
  25. 10.1123/jsr.21.1.7 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.06.011 · DOI
  27. 10.1007/s00167-006-0040-y · DOI
  28. Noehren B, 2017, Orthop J Sports Med, 5
  29. 10.1123/jsr.20.2.145 · DOI
  30. 10.4085/1062-6050-50.1.10 · DOI
  31. 10.2519/jospt.1991.13.2.60 · DOI
  32. 10.1186/1477-7525-3-59 · DOI
  33. 10.1136/bjsm.2008.048934 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1177/2325967118764884 · DOI
  35. Shurr S, 2017, Int J Sports Phys Ther, 12, 163
  36. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.11.003 · DOI
  37. 10.2519/jospt.2013.4452 · DOI
  38. 10.1177/0363546511429776 · DOI
  39. 10.1007/s00167-011-1669-8 · DOI
  40. 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095898 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.2106/JBJS.I.01537 · DOI
  42. 10.1177/0363546516651845 · DOI
  43. 10.1177/0363546518773757 · DOI
  44. Wierike SC, 2012, Scand J Med Sci Sports, 23, 527, 10.1111/sms.12010 · DOI
  45. 10.1177/0363546515621554 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.2519/jospt.2012.3741 · DOI
  47. 10.1177/2325967116666039 · DOI
  48. 10.5694/mja17.00974 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kaplan, Y., & Witvrouw, E.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Kaplan, Yonatan
Venue
Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach
Published
2019-05-28
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
301-305
ISSN
  • 1941-0921 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7381
OpenAlex
W2947627931
Cited by
174
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 3
FWCI
2.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports injuries and prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Foot and Ankle Surgery
Keywords
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, return to sport, return-to-play criteria, psychological readiness, functional testing, strength testing, risk factors, movement quality
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Return to Sport, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries, Athletic Injuries, Exercise Test, Fear, Humans, Internal-External Control, Recurrence, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Self Efficacy, Muscle Strength, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

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