↓ Skip to main content

Wolters Kluwer

Ability of Functional Performance Tests to Identify Individuals With Chronic Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 1,810)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
176 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
Title
Ability of Functional Performance Tests to Identify Individuals With Chronic Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis
Published in
Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, November 2019
DOI 10.1097/jsm.0000000000000535
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam B. Rosen, Alan R. Needle, Jupil Ko

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of functional performance tests (FPTs) in differentiating between individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI) and healthy controls. The National Library of Medicine Catalog (PubMed), the Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the SPORTDiscus, from inception to June 2017 were searched. Search terms consisted of: "Functional Performance Test*" OR "Dynamic Balance Test*" OR "Postural Stability Test*" OR "Star Excursion Balance Test*" OR "Hop Test*" AND "Ankle Instability" OR "Ankle Sprain." Included articles assessed differences in FPTs in patients with CAI compared with a control group. Included studies were assessed for methodological quality and level of evidence. Individual and mean effect sizes were also calculated for FPTs from the included articles. Twenty-nine studies met the criteria and were analyzed. The most common FPTs were timed-hop tests, side-hop, multiple-hop test, single-hop for distance, foot-lift test, and the Star Excursion Balance Tests (SEBTs). The side-hop (g = -1.056, P = 0.009, n = 7), timed-hop tests (g = -0.958, P = 0.002, n = 9), multiple-hop test (g = 1.399, P < 0.001, n = 3), and foot-lift tests (g = -0.761, P = 0.020, n = 3) demonstrated the best utility with large mean effect sizes, whereas the SEBT anteromedial (g = 0.326, P = 0.022, n = 7), medial (g = 0.369, P = 0.006, n = 7), and posteromedial (g = 0.374, P < 0.001, n = 13) directions had moderate effects. The side-hop, timed-hopping, multiple-hop, and foot-lift seem the best FPTs to evaluate individuals with CAI. There was a large degree of heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting, potentially limiting the clinical implementation of these FPTs. These tests are cheap, effective, alternatives compared with instrumented measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 176 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 230 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 17%
Student > Master 29 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Other 16 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 4%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 83 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 20%
Sports and Recreations 34 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 <1%
Computer Science 2 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 91 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 125. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2023.
All research outputs
#334,832
of 25,394,081 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine
#33
of 1,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,556
of 378,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine
#1
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,081 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 378,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.