Previous research suggests more biomechanically demanding tasks (e.g., stair descent, hopping) magnify biomechanical asymmetries compared with walking after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, it is unclear if modifying task‐specific constraints, like walking speed also elicits greater biomechanical asymmetries in this population. We examined the effects of manipulating walking speed on ground reaction force (GRF) asymmetries in individuals with ACL reconstruction and uninjured controls. Thirty individuals with ACL reconstruction (age = 20.6 ± 5.4 years, body mass index [BMI] = 23.9 ± 3.3 kg/m2) and 15 controls (age = 23.1 ± 4.5 years, BMI = 23.6 ± 2.7 kg/m2) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at three speeds (100%, 120%, and 80% self‐selected speed). Bilateral vertical and posterior‐anterior GRFs were recorded at each speed. GRF asymmetries were calculated by subtracting the uninjured from the injured limb at each percent of stance. Statistical parametric mapping was used to evaluate the effects of speed on GRF asymmetries across stance. We found vertical and posterior GRF asymmetries were exacerbated at faster speeds and reduced at slower speeds in ACL individuals but not controls (p < .05). No differences in anterior GRF asymmetries were observed between speeds in either group (p > .05). Our results suggest increasing walking speed magnifies GRF asymmetries in individuals with ACL reconstruction. Statement of Clinical Significance: Evaluating both preferred and fast walking speeds may aid in characterizing biomechanical asymmetries in individuals with ACL reconstruction which may be valuable in earlier rehabilitative time points when more difficult tasks like hopping and running are not feasible.

Background: Despite tremendous advances in the treatment and management of stroke, restoring motor and functional outcomes after stroke continues to be a major clinical challenge. Given the wide range of approaches used in motor rehabilitation, several commentaries have highlighted the lack of a clear scientific basis for different interventions as one critical factor that has led to suboptimal study outcomes. Objective: To understand the content of current therapeutic interventions in terms of their active ingredients. Methods: We conducted an analysis of randomized controlled trials in stroke rehabilitation over a 2-year period from 2019-2020. Results: There were three primary findings: (i) consistent with prior reports, most studies did not provide an explicit rationale for why the treatment would be expected to work, (ii) most therapeutic interventions mentioned multiple active ingredients and there was not a close correspondence between the active ingredients mentioned versus the active ingredients measured in the study, and (iii) multimodal approaches that involved more than one therapeutic approach tended to be combined in an ad-hoc fashion, indicating the lack of a targeted approach. Conclusion: These results highlight the need for strengthening cross-disciplinary connections between basic science and clinical studies, and the need for structured development and testing of therapeutic approaches to find more effective treatment interventions.

No abstract