Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Identifying the ‘incredible’! Part 1 and Part 2—Letter to the Editor
  1. Kyle B Kosik1,
  2. Ryan S McCann2,
  3. Masafumi Terada3,
  4. Phillip A Gribble1
  1. 1 Department of Athletic Training & Clinical Nutrition, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA
  2. 2 Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
  3. 3 College of Sport and Health Sciences, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan
  1. Correspondence to Kyle B Kosik, Department of Athletic Training & Clinical Nutrition, University of Kentucky, Lexington KY 40506, USA; kyle.kosik{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.

We draw the reader’s attention to the two-part editorial by Büttner and colleagues.1 2 The authors have made a compelling argument for the need to assess the risk of bias for individual articles included in the systematic reviews. We appreciate Büttner et al 1 2 for using our systematic review as an example of why assessing risk of bias is important and the impact it may have on the findings.

Our systematic review summarised therapeutic interventions for improving region-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients with chronic ankle instability (CAI).3 A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify articles based on our inclusion criteria. We did not limit our systematic review to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) because we sought to compile a complete list of all possible treatment options available in the literature. We felt that coalescing all available literature would give clinicians and researchers a single reference source when considering the type of intervention to implement, as …

View Full Text


  • Twitter @gribblepa

  • Contributors All authors contributed to the idea, writing and approval of the work submitted.

  • 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.

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