Effect of Knee Supports on Knee Joint Position Sense after Uphill and Downhill Walking. A Test Using a Hiking Simulation Method

Bottoni, Giuliamarta; Heinrich, D.; Kofler, Philipp; Hasler, Michael; Nachbauer, Werner

doi:10.4172/2165-7556.1000132

Cited by 1 publication

(15 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 27 included studies, two studies followed a randomized controlled design, 53,63 17 followed a randomized crossover design, 37,41,44,45,[47][48][49][50]52,54,[64][65][66][67][68][69][70] and eight followed a crossover design. 5,46,51,[71][72][73][74][75] 11 scored 6, 41,44,45,[47][48][49]52,[64][65][66]68 11 scored 5, 5,37,46,50,54,67,[69][70][71]73,74 and three scored 4. 51,72,75 Two researchers (S.G. and I.G.)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the studies included, 20 examined the impact of CGs on healthy individuals. 37,41,[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][52][53][54][64][65][66][67][69][70][71]73 Within this subset of 20 studies, five conducted additional assessments of the effect of CGs on healthy individuals experiencing fatigue. These five studies used a fatigue protocol in the same healthy sample.…”

Section: Health Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These five studies used a fatigue protocol in the same healthy sample. 47,49,50,53,70 Additionally, two studies focused exclusively on the influence of CGs on healthy individuals with fatigue. 63,68 Furthermore, three studies investigated the effects of CGs on individuals undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, 72,74,75 while one study each explored the impact of CGs on individuals with osteoarthritis 5 and individuals with ACL rupture.…”

Section: Health Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nineteen of the included studies employed the joint position sense test 5,41,[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]65,67,68,71,[73][74][75] to evaluate proprioceptive acuity. In all 19 studies, the assessment focused on measuring the absolute error, with three of them also including assessments of constant error 49,52,53 and two variable error.…”

Section: Health Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,43 This lack of agreement primarily stems from variations in findings among individual studies. Some studies have reported a significant enhancement in proprioceptive accuracy when CGs are used, [44][45][46][47][48] while others have found no discernible difference, 41,[49][50][51] and in some cases, even a decline in proprioceptive performance. 52 A recent scoping review indicated that CGs might have a positive impact on improving joint proprioception, 1 and a meta-analysis indicated favorable effects of CGs on knee joint proprioception, with a range of improvement from 0.35 • to 0.61 • and statistical significance (p < 0.001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Influence of compression garments on proprioception: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Ghai,

Nilson,

Gustavsson

et al. 2024

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compression garments (CGs) are commonly used in rehabilitation and sports contexts to enhance performance and speed up recovery. Despite the growing use of CGs in recent decades, there is no unanimous consensus on their overall influence on joint proprioception. In this current meta‐analysis, we aim to fill this knowledge gap by assessing the impact of CGs on joint proprioception. We conducted a literature search across seven databases and one registry. Ultimately, we included 27 studies with 671 participants. The meta‐analysis revealed that wearing CGs resulted in a significant reduction in absolute error during joint position sensing (Hedges’ g: −0.64, p = 0.006) as compared to no CGs. However, further analyses of variables such as constant error (p = 0.308), variable error (p = 0.541) during joint position sense tests, threshold to detect passive motion (p = 0.757), and active movement extent discrimination (p = 0.842) did not show a significant impact of CGs. The review also identified gaps in the reporting of certain outcomes, such as parameters of CGs, reporting of performance, individual‐reported outcomes, and lack of placebo comparators. Consequently, this review provides guidelines for future studies that may facilitate evidence‐based synthesis and ultimately contribute to a better understanding of the overall influence of CGs on joint proprioception.

show abstract