...
首页> 外文期刊>Sports medicine >Ankle Bracing is Effective for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Acute Ankle Injuries in Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
【24h】

Ankle Bracing is Effective for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Acute Ankle Injuries in Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

机译:脚踝支撑对于运动员中急性踝关节伤害的急性和二次预防有效:系统审查和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Background Ankle bracing has been verified as being effective for secondary prevention of ankle injuries. However, new studies have recently been published that are not included in previous meta-analyses. Furthermore, the effects of bracing for primary prevention of ankle injuries are still unclear. Objective The objective of this article was to systematically review the literature about the effectiveness of ankle bracing on primary and secondary prevention of acute ankle injuries in athletes. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and PEDro databases for eligible articles until July 2018. Randomized controlled trials that studied ankle bracing vs. no intervention for athletes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted to study the effect of ankle bracing for primary and secondary prevention of ankle injuries. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method was used to determine the quality of evidence. Results We included six randomized controlled trials. Significant risk ratios of 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.32–0.88) and 0.37 (95% confidence interval 0.24–0.58) were found in favor of ankle bracing vs. no ankle bracing for primary (low quality of evidence, I _(2)= 77%) and secondary prevention (moderate quality of evidence, I _(2)= 0%) of acute ankle injuries. Numbers needed to treat were 26 and 12 for the primary and secondary prevention of acute ankle injuries. Conclusions Ankle bracing is effective for primary and secondary prevention of acute ankle injuries among athletes. However, conclusions in regard to primary prevention should be drawn cautiously because of the low quality of evidence and significant heterogeneity.
机译:背景技术脚踝支撑已被验证为对踝关节伤害的二次预防有效。但是,最近发表了新的研究,这些研究不包括在以前的META分析中。此外,支撑初级防止踝关节伤害的影响仍然不清楚。目的本文的目的是系统地审查关于踝关节对运动员急性踝损伤的初级和二次预防的有效性的文献。方法在2018年7月,我们搜索了符合条件的文章的PubMed,Embase,Sportscus,Cinahl和Pedro数据库。学习脚踝支撑与运动员的随机对照试验。通过偏置工具的Cochrane风险评估偏差风险。进行了荟萃分析,以研究踝关节支撑对踝关节伤害的初级和二次防止的影响。建议评估,发展和评估方法的评分用于确定证据的质量。结果我们包括六项随机对照试验。重视0.53(95%置信区间0.32-0.88)和0.37(95%置信区间0.24-0.58)的风险比有利于踝支撑与原发性踝关节支撑(低证据质量低,I _(2) = 77%)和二级预防(中等质量证据,I _(2)= 0%)急性踝关节伤害。治疗所需的数量为26和12,用于急性踝关节伤害的主要和二次预防。结论脚踝支撑对于运动员中急性踝关节伤害的初级和二次预防有效。然而,由于证据质量低和重要的异质性,应谨慎地绘制关于初步预防的结论。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Sports medicine 》 |2018年第12期| 共10页
  • 作者单位

    Physical Therapy Science Program in Clinical Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine Utrecht;

    Physical Therapy Science Program in Clinical Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine Utrecht;

    Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neurosciences Department of Rehabilitation Physical Therapy Science;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 运动医学 ;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号