A Systematic Evaluation of Field-Based Screening Methods for the Assessment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Injury Risk.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory-based measures provide an accurate method to identify risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury; however, these methods are generally prohibitive to the wider community. Screening methods that can be completed in a field or clinical setting may be more applicable for wider community use. Examination of field-based screening methods for ACL injury risk can aid in identifying the most applicable method(s) for use in these settings.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare field-based screening methods for ACL injury risk to determine their efficacy of use in wider community settings.

DATA SOURCES: An electronic database search was conducted on the SPORTDiscus™, MEDLINE, AMED and CINAHL databases (January 1990-July 2015) using a combination of relevant keywords. A secondary search of the same databases, using relevant keywords from identified screening methods, was also undertaken.

STUDY SELECTION: Studies identified as potentially relevant were independently examined by two reviewers for inclusion. Where consensus could not be reached, a third reviewer was consulted. Original research articles that examined screening methods for ACL injury risk that could be undertaken outside of a laboratory setting were included for review.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies. Included studies were categorized according to the screening method they examined. A description of each screening method, and data pertaining to the ability to prospectively identify ACL injuries, validity and reliability, recommendations for identifying 'at-risk' athletes, equipment and training required to complete screening, time taken to screen athletes, and applicability of the screening method across sports and athletes were extracted from relevant studies.

RESULTS: Of 1077 citations from the initial search, a total of 25 articles were identified as potentially relevant, with 12 meeting all inclusion/exclusion criteria. From the secondary search, eight further studies met all criteria, resulting in 20 studies being included for review. Five ACL-screening methods-the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS), Clinic-Based Algorithm, Observational Screening of Dynamic Knee Valgus (OSDKV), 2D-Cam Method, and Tuck Jump Assessment-were identified. There was limited evidence supporting the use of field-based screening methods in predicting ACL injuries across a range of populations. Differences relating to the equipment and time required to complete screening methods were identified.

LIMITATIONS: Only screening methods for ACL injury risk were included for review. Field-based screening methods developed for lower-limb injury risk in general may also incorporate, and be useful in, screening for ACL injury risk.

CONCLUSIONS: Limited studies were available relating to the OSDKV and 2D-Cam Method. The LESS showed predictive validity in identifying ACL injuries, however only in a youth athlete population. The LESS also appears practical for community-wide use due to the minimal equipment and set-up/analysis time required. The Clinic-Based Algorithm may have predictive value for ACL injury risk as it identifies athletes who exhibit high frontal plane knee loads during a landing task, but requires extensive additional equipment and time, which may limit its application to wider community settings.