Table 2

Description of studies included in review

StudyParticipantsInterventionComparisonLength of follow-upOutcome measure/s and results
Acute
 Green et al9N=38; acute (<72 h);
Exp mean age=26.1
Control mean age=24.9
RICE vs RICE+AP TC joint mobilisation every other day for up to 2 weeksControl groupBefore and following each treatment and 1 day post discharge from trial
  1. DF ROM;

  2. Gait parameters: stride speed, step length, single support time

  3. Results: increased DF ROM and stride speed

 Cosby et al23N=17, acute; Grade I or II sprain
mean age=19.7
Grade III AP TC joint mobilisation and standard of care vs standard of careControl group24 h
post-treatment
  1. DF ROM;

  2. Pain and function: FADI and FADI sport;

  3. Posterior talar translation

    Results: pain diminished

 Eisenhart et al29N=55 acute; Grade I or II sprain (<24 h);
Exp mean age=29.9
Control mean age=32.8
RICE vs RICE + man therapy (TC distraction manipulation) plus analgesics for both groupsControl groupImmediate and between 5 and 7 days after intervention
  1. Pain: VAS;

  2. Oedema: circumference at medial and lateral malleoli;

  3. Sagittal plane ankle ROM (difference between involved and uninvolved limb)

    Results: immediate improvement in swelling and pain; ROM sign improved after 1 week

Subacute/chronic
 Collins et al28N=16, subacute; Grade II sprain
Mean age=28.2
  1. MWM

  2. Placebo MWM

  3. Control (maintain df position for 5 min)

Self-control group: all participants received the three interventions on three separate occasionsImmediate and 1 week
3 testing sessions within 1 week of initial visit; outcome measures repeated following treatment
  1. WB DF ROM;

  2. Pain: pressure and thermal pain threshold

    Results: improvement in DF ROM

 Reid et al24N=23 chronic
Mean age=25;
WB MWM vs Sham (passive knee flexion/extension while maintaining neutral TC position)Self-control groupImmediateWB DF ROM
Results: improvement in DF ROM
 Pellow and Brantingham30N=30 subacute/chronic; Grade I or II sprain
Mean age=24.9
Detuned US vs Manip (TC); maximum 8 treatmentsControl groupAfter first treatment, final treatment and 1-month follow-up
  1. Pain: threshold measured with algometer; McGill questionnaire; NPRS

  2. Sagittal plane ROM:

  3. Function: functional evaluation scale

    Results: improvement in all outcome measures at 1 month

 Lopez-Rodriguez et al18N=52 subacute; Grade II sprain
Mean age=22.5
TC thrust and AP talar manip, post-talar manip vs sham (same position as manip but no thrust)Control groupImmediateWB load distribution; nine variables total
Results: improvement in foot area distribution (posterior, anterior, posterior-anterior)
 Yeo and Wright25N=13, subacute,
Mean age=29.5
Grade II
AP talar mobs; contact control, no contact controlSelf-control group: all participants received the three interventions on three separate occasionsImmediate
  1. WB DF ROM;

  2. Ankle functional score;

  3. Pain: VAS, pain threshold using algometer

    Results: improvement in DF ROM and pressure pain threshold

  • AP, anterior to posterior; DF, dorsiflexion; FADI, foot and ankle disability index; manip, manipulation; MWM, mobilisation with movement; N, number of participants; NPRS, numerical pain rating scale; RICE, rest, ice, compression, elevation; ROM, range of motion; TC, talocrural; US, ultrasound; VAS, visual analogue scale; WB, weight-bearing.