Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chronic Ankle Instability: Evolution of the Model

Open access
Hiller, Claire E., Kilbreath, Sharon L., Refshauge, Kathryn M.·2011·Journal of Athletic Training

Abstract

Context: The Hertel model of chronic ankle instability (CAI) is commonly used in research but may not be sufficiently comprehensive. Mechanical instability and functional instability are considered part of a continuum, and recurrent sprain occurs when both conditions are present. A modification of the Hertel model is proposed whereby these 3 components can exist independently or in combination. Objective: To examine the fit of data from people with CAI to 2 CAI models and to explore whether the different subgroups display impairments when compared with a control group. Design: Cross-sectional study. Patients or Other Participants: Community-dwelling adults and adolescent dancers were recruited: 137 ankles with ankle sprain for objective 1 and 81 with CAI and 43 controls for objective 2. Intervention(s): Two balance tasks and time to recover from an inversion perturbation were assessed to determine if the subgroups demonstrated impairments when compared with a control group (objective 2). Main Outcome Measure(s): For objective 1 (fit to the 2 models), outcomes were Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool score, anterior drawer test results, and number of sprains. For objective 2, outcomes were 2 balance tasks (number of foot lifts in 30 seconds, ability to balance on the ball of the foot) and time to recover from an inversion perturbation. The Cohen d was calculated to compare each subgroup with the control group. Results: A total of 56.5% of ankles (n = 61) fit the Hertel model, whereas all ankles (n = 108) fit the proposed model. In the proposed model, 42.6% of ankles were classified as perceived instability, 30.5% as recurrent sprain and perceived instability, and 26.9% as among the remaining groups. All CAI subgroups performed more poorly on the balance and inversion-perturbation tasks than the control group. Subgroups with perceived instability had greater impairment in single-leg stance, whereas participants with recurrent sprain performed more poorly than the other subgroups when balancing on the ball of the foot. Only individuals with hypomobility appeared unimpaired when recovering from an inversion perturbation. Conclusions: The new model of CAI is supported by the available data. Perceived instability alone and in combination characterized the majority of participants. Several impairments distinguished the sprain groups from the control group.

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 · 10.4085/1062-6050-46.2.133

Cites

35 of 35 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 35 references

Cited by

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Hiller, C. E., Kilbreath, S. L., & Refshauge, K. M.
Venue
Journal of Athletic Training
Published
2011-03
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
133-141
ISSN
1062-6050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2146125914
Cited by
371
References
35
FWCI
22.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Chronic Ankle Instability: Evolution of the Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4085/1062-6050-46.2.133
The paper
Hiller, C. E., Kilbreath, S. L., & Refshauge, K. M. (2011). Chronic Ankle Instability: Evolution of the Model. Journal of Athletic Training. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-46.2.133

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.