Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-rehabilitation research methodological quality: a systematic review with world region comparisons

A systematic review and world region comparison of combined ACL reconstruction-rehabilitation studies was performed.

Studies that combined ACL surgical-rehabilitative management published between January 1990 and June 2014 were evaluated. The combined terms "rehabilitation" and "anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" or "ACL reconstruction" were used to search the CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PEDro, and PubMed databases. A total of 5920 studies were initially identified. Inclusion criteria reduced this total to 299 studies that underwent abstract review. Following this, 155 studies underwent full text review and 109 met all inclusion criteria for Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) evaluation.

Overall, MCMS were 74.0 ± 17 (mean ± standard deviation). Europe had slightly greater MCMS than North America (P = 0.041). Specific MCMS components that displayed significant world region differences included use of an independent investigator (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.047), including a patient-completed written assessment (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.009), allowing the patient to complete the assessment without medical, surgical, or rehabilitation personnel intervention (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.009), and use of well-described subject selection or inclusion criteria (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.004). Tegner Activity Scale (P = 0.042) and VAS-Pain Scale (P = 0.007) use was greater in Europe compared with other world regions. Primary rehabilitation theme frequency was comparable between world regions (n.s.).

Regional research methodological quality differences were observed. Europe displayed a slightly greater MCMS for combined ACL reconstruction-rehabilitation studies. With this information, research groups can design better team-based approaches to ensure that study findings provide sufficient significance to foster meaningful patient care improvements.

Systematic review, Level III.