Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Return-to-sport testing following ACL reconstruction revisited
  1. Kate E Webster1,
  2. Timothy E Hewett2
  1. 1 School Of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  2. 2 Hewett Consulting, Rochester and Minneapolis, MN, USA
  1. Correspondence to Kate E Webster, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia; k.webster{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

In our recent systematic review and meta-analysis,1 one of the questions posed was: Is passing return-to-sport (RTS) test batteries associated with reduced rates of subsequent knee injury?1 The aim of this editorial is to comment on debate2 about the methodology used to avoid further confusion with regard to relevant data and conclusions that can be drawn from the existent literature. Concerns raised centred on two aspects: appraisal of risk-of-bias and pooling data from heterogenous samples, both of which impact on study selection. These are discussed separately.

Risk-of-bias (quality assessment)

For risk-of-bias assessment, two tools provided by the National Institutes of Health were used. While one could argue the semantics of using the terminology ‘risk-of-bias’ versus ‘quality assessment’—we acknowledge that we used both—the content of the assessment was clearly in line with what Capin et al 2 suggest should be included in such an assessment. Full details of the assessment can be accessed in the online supplementary appendix to our article. It is possible that this appendix has been overlooked.

It must be understood that the two studies excluded by Capin et …

View Full Text


  • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published Online First. The affiliation details have been updated.

  • Contributors Both the authors contributed to the reporting for this manuscript, and read and approved the final submitted manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.