Dataset Information

Properties of Knee Joint Position Sense Tests for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Knee proprioception is believed to be deficient after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Tests of joint position sense (JPS) are commonly used to assess knee proprioception, but their psychometric properties (PMPs) are largely unknown.

Purpose

To evaluate the PMPs (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of existing knee JPS tests targeting individuals with ACL injury.

Study design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ProQuest databases were searched to identify studies that assessed PMPs of knee JPS tests in individuals with ACL injury. The risk of bias for each included study was assessed and rated at the outcome level for each knee JPS test. Overall quality and levels of evidence for each PMP were rated according to established criteria. Meta-analyses with mean differences were conducted using random effects models when adequate data were available.

Results

Included were 80 studies covering 119 versions of knee JPS tests. Meta-analyses indicated sufficient quality for known-groups and discriminative validity (ACL-injured knees vs knees of asymptomatic controls and contralateral noninjured knees, respectively), owing to significantly greater absolute errors for ACL-injured knees based on a strong level of evidence. A meta-analysis showed insufficient quality for responsiveness, which was attributed to a lack of significant change over time after diverse interventions with a moderate level of evidence. Statistical heterogeneity (I ² > 40%) was evident in the majority of meta-analyses. All remaining PMPs (reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, convergent validity, and other PMPs related to responsiveness) were assessed qualitatively, and they failed to achieve a sufficient quality rating. This was a result of either the study outcomes not agreeing with the statistical cutoff values/hypotheses or the level of evidence being rated as conflicting/unknown or based on only a single study.

Conclusion

Knee JPS tests appear to have sufficient validity in differentiating ACL-injured knees from asymptomatic knees. Further evidence of high methodologic quality is required to ascertain the reliability, responsiveness, and other types of validity assessed here. We recommend investigations that compare the modifiable methodologic components of knee JPS tests on their PMPs to develop standardized evidence-based tests.

SUBMITTER: Strong A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8287371 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThreshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) tests of the knee joint are commonly implemented among individuals with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury to assess proprioceptive acuity. Their psychometric properties (PMPs), i.e. reliability, validity and responsiveness, are however unclear. This systematic review aimed to establish the PMPs of existing knee joint TTDPM tests among individuals with ACL injury.MethodsThe databases PubMed, AMED, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL and ProQuest were searched to identify studies that assessed the properties of knee joint TTDPM tests in individuals with ACL injury. The risk of bias for each included study was assessed at the outcome level for each test. Overall quality and levels of evidence for each property were rated according to established criteria. Meta-analyses with mean differences were conducted using random-effects models when adequate data were available.ResultsFifty-one studies covering 108 TTDPM tests and 1632 individuals with unilateral ACL injury were included. A moderate-to-strong level of evidence indicated insufficient quality for all of the following: convergent validity, known-groups validity, discriminative validity, responsiveness between subgroups, and responsiveness to intervention. Subgroup meta-analyses for known-groups validity did however find that a starting angle of 15° resulted in significantly worse TTDPM for knees with ACL injury compared to those of asymptomatic persons (mean difference 0.28°; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.53; P = 0.03), albeit based on only three studies. Due to the lack of evidence, it was not possible to estimate the quality of reliability, measurement error, and criterion validity, nor responsiveness from a criterion and construct approach.ConclusionsAmong persons with ACL injury, existing tests of knee joint TTDPM lack either sufficient quality or evidence for their reliability, validity and responsiveness. Significantly worse thresholds for ACL-injured knees compared to those of asymptomatic controls from a 15° starting angle and trends towards significance for some validity measures nevertheless encourage the development of standardised tests. Further research investigating the influence of modifiable test components (e.g. starting angle and motion direction) on the PMPs of knee joint TTDPM tests following ACL injury is warranted.

Project description:Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury predisposes individuals to early-onset knee joint osteoarthritis (OA). Abnormal joint loading is apparent after ACL injury and reconstruction. The relationship between altered joint biomechanics and the development of knee OA is unknown.Altered knee joint kinetics and medial compartment contact forces initially after injury and reconstruction are associated with radiographic knee OA 5 years after reconstruction.Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.Individuals with acute, unilateral ACL injury completed gait analysis before (baseline) and after (posttraining) preoperative rehabilitation and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after reconstruction. Surface electromyographic and knee biomechanical data served as inputs to an electromyographically driven musculoskeletal model to estimate knee joint contact forces. Patients completed radiographic testing 5 years after reconstruction. Differences in knee joint kinetics and contact forces were compared between patients with and those without radiographic knee OA.Patients with OA walked with greater frontal plane interlimb differences than those without OA (nonOA) at baseline (peak knee adduction moment difference: 0.00 ± 0.08 N·m/kg·m [nonOA] vs -0.15 ± 0.09 N·m/kg·m [OA], P = .014; peak knee adduction moment impulse difference: -0.001 ± 0.032 N·m·s/kg·m [nonOA] vs -0.048 ± 0.031 N·m·s/kg·m [OA], P = .042). The involved limb knee adduction moment impulse of the group with osteoarthritis was also lower than that of the group without osteoarthritis at baseline (0.087 ± 0.023 N·m·s/kg·m [nonOA] vs 0.049 ± 0.018 N·m·s/kg·m [OA], P = .023). Significant group differences were absent at posttraining but reemerged 6 months after reconstruction (peak knee adduction moment difference: 0.02 ± 0.04 N·m/kg·m [nonOA] vs -0.06 ± 0.11 N·m/kg·m [OA], P = .043). In addition, the OA group walked with lower peak medial compartment contact forces of the involved limb than did the group without OA at 6 months (2.89 ± 0.52 body weight [nonOA] vs 2.10 ± 0.69 body weight [OA], P = .036).Patients who had radiographic knee OA 5 years after ACL reconstruction walked with lower knee adduction moments and medial compartment joint contact forces than did those patients without OA early after injury and reconstruction.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury affects knee proprioception and sensorimotor control and might contribute to an increased risk of a second ACL injury and secondary knee osteoarthritis. Therefore, there is a growing need for valid, reliable and responsive knee proprioception tests. No previous study has comprehensively reviewed all the relevant psychometric properties (PMPs) of these tests together. The aim of this review protocol is to narrate the steps involved in synthesising the evidence for the PMPs of specific knee proprioception tests among individuals with an ACL injury and knee-healthy controls. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses will be followed to report the review. A combination of four conceptual groups of terms-(1) construct (knee proprioception), (2) target population (healthy individuals and those with an ACL injury managed conservatively or with a surgical reconstruction), (3) measurement instrument (specific knee proprioception tests) and (4) PMPs (reliability, validity and responsiveness)-will be used for electronic databases search. PubMed, AMED, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ProQuest will be searched from their inception to November 2018. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full text articles, extract data and perform risk of bias assessment using the updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments risk of bias checklist for the eligible studies. A narrative synthesis of the findings and a meta-analysis will be attempted as appropriate. Each PMP of knee proprioception tests will be classified as 'sufficient', 'indeterminate' or 'insufficient'. The overall level of evidence will be ascertained using an established set of criteria. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval or patient consent is not required for a systematic review. The review findings will be submitted as a series of manuscripts for peer-review and publication in scientific journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018108014.