This scoping review aims to identify patient-related factors associated with a poorer outcome following total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). A scoping review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A computer-based literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane trials, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently performed title/abstract and full-text screening according to predetermined selection criteria. English-language original research studies reporting patient-related factors associated with a poorer outcome following TAA were included. Outcomes were defined as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), perioperative complications, and failure.Aims
Methods
Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are devastating injuries that can result in significant morbidity and time away from sport. There remains considerable variation in strategies employed for investigation, indications for operative intervention, outcome reporting, and rehabilitation following these injuries. At present no study has yet provided a comprehensive overview evaluating the extent, range, and overall summary of the published literature pertaining to MLKI. Our aim is to perform a methodologically rigorous scoping review, mapping the literature evaluating the diagnosis and management of MLKI. This scoping review will address three aims: firstly, to map the current extent and nature of evidence for diagnosis and management of MLKI; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings to practitioners; and thirdly, to highlight gaps in current literature. A three-step search strategy as described by accepted methodology will be employed to identify peer-reviewed literature including reviews, technical notes, opinion pieces, and original research. An initial limited search will be performed to determine suitable search terms, followed by an expanded search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science). Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for final inclusion.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate the use of biologic therapies in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in professional and Olympic athletes. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley frameworks were followed. A three-step search strategy identified relevant published primary and secondary studies, as well as grey literature. The identified studies were screened with criteria for inclusion comprising clinical studies evaluating the use of biologic therapies in professional and Olympic athletes, systematic reviews, consensus statements, and conference proceedings. Data were extracted using a standardized tool to form a descriptive analysis and a thematic summary.Aims
Methods
The use of biologics in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in Olympic and professional athletes appears to be increasing. There are no studies which currently map the extent, range, and nature of existing literature concerning the use and efficacy of such therapies in this arena. The objective of this scoping review is to map the available evidence regarding the use of biologics in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in Olympic and professional sport. Best-practice methodological frameworks suggested by Arksey and O’Malley, Levac et al, and the Joanna Briggs Institute will be used. This scoping review will aim to firstly map the current extent, range, and nature of evidence for biologic strategies to treat injuries in professional and Olympic sport; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings; and thirdly, to identify gaps in existing literature. A three-step search strategy will identify peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature, including reviews, original research, and both published and unpublished (‘grey’) literature. An initial limited search will identify suitable search terms, followed by a search of five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) using keyword and index terms. Studies will be screened independently by two reviewers for final inclusion.Aims
Methods
