Introduction
Materials and methods
Literature review
Expert opinion
Statistic analysis
Results
Article | Article design (type) | Level of evidence |
---|---|---|
Allen et al. [1] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Arnason et al. [2] | Epidemiological review Retrospective cohort study | II |
Arnason et al. [3] | Original article Prospective therapeutic study | II |
Askling et al. [4] | Original article Prospective prognostic study | II |
Askling et al. [5] | Original article Prognostic case series | II |
Askling et al. [6] | Original article Prognostic case series | II |
Askling et al. [7] | Original article Prognostic case series | IV |
Bencardino et al. [8] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Blankerbaker et al. [9] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Brooks et al. [10] | Original article Cohort study (prevention) | III |
Carling et al. [11] | Epidemiological review Prognostic case series | II |
Cohen et al. [12] | Literature review/background | V |
Connell et al. [13] | Original article Diagnostic case series | I |
Davis [14] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Ekstrand et al. [15] | Original article Prospective cohort study | II |
Ekstrand et al. [16] | Original article Prospective two-cohort study | II |
Ekstrand et al. [17] | Original article Prospective cohort study | II |
Ekstrand et al. [18] | Original article Prospective cohort study | II |
Ekstrand et al. [19] | Original article Prospective cohort study | II |
Elliott et al. [20] | Descriptive epidemiology study Prospective cohort study | II |
Engebretsen et al. [21] | Original article Prospective cohort study | II |
Fleckenstein et al. [22] | Original article Diagnostic case series (descriptive) | III |
Fleckenstein et al. [23] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Gibbs et al. [24] | Original article Prospective diagnostic study | I |
Gielen et al. [25] | Expert opinion/background Descriptive chapter | V |
Guerrero et al. [26] | Original article Prognostic case series | III |
Hägglund et al. [27] | Original article Prospective prognostic study | I |
Heiderscheit et al. [29] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Heiser et al. [30] | Original article Retrospective cohort study | III |
Klingele et al. [31] | Original article Retrospective cohort study | III |
Kornberg et al. [32] | Original article Therapeutic cohort study | II |
Koulouris et al. [33] | Original article Retrospective cohort study | III |
Koulouris et al. [34] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Koulouris et al. [35] | Original article Prognostic cohort study | III |
Lempainen et al. [36] | Original article Retrospective case series | IV |
Liemohn et al. [37] | Original article Therapeutic case series | IV |
Malliaropoulos et al. [38] | Original article Prognostic cohort study | II |
Malliaropoulos et al. [39] | Original article Prognostic cohort study | I |
Martínez Amat et al. [40] | Original article Diagnostic cohort study | II |
Miñarro et al. [41] | Original article Diagnostic cohort study | IV |
Nikolaou et al. [42] | Biomechanical and histological evaluation of muscle | IV |
Orchard et al. [43] | Original article Retrospective epidemiologic study | III |
Orchard et al. [44] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Peetrons [45] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Petersen et al. [46] | Original article Prospective cohort study | II |
Puranen et al. [47] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Sallay et al. [48] | Original article Descriptive case series | III |
Sarimo et al. [49] | Original article Retrospective case series | IV |
Schneider-Kolsky et al. [50] | Original article Diagnostic cohort study | I |
Schneider-Kolsky et al. [51] | Author’s reply | V |
Seward et al. [52] | Original article Prospective cohort study | II |
Shellock et al. [53] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Slavotinek et al. [54] | Original article Prospective RCT | II |
Sorichter et al. [55] | Original article Retrospective case–control study | III |
Verrall et al. [56] | Original article Prospective prognostic cohort study | II |
Verrall et al. [57] | Original article Prospective cohort study | II |
Verrall et al. [58] | Original article Prospective cohort study | II |
Volpi et al. [59] | Epidemiological review Retrospective cohort study | III |
Walden et al. [60] | Original article Prospective cohort study | I |
Warren et al. [61] | Original article Prospective observational study | II |
Wood et al. [62] | Expert opinion/background | V |
Woods et al. [63] | Epidemiological review Prospective cohort study | II |
Woods et al. [64] | Epidemiological review Prospective cohort study | II |
Yeung et al. [65] | Original article Prospective cohort study | II |
Zeren et al. [66] | Original article Diagnostic cohort study | III |
Article type | Number | Level of evidence | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | II | III | IV | V | ||
Total | 65 | 6 | 26 | 12 | 6 | 15 |
Original article | ||||||
Epidemiological review | 7 | 5 | 2 | |||
Prospective | 30 | 6 | 21 | 2 | 1 | |
Retrospective | 13 | 8 | 5 | |||
Literature review | 1 | 1 | ||||
Expert opinion/background | 13 | 13 | ||||
Author’s reply | 1 | 1 |
Timing of initial physical examination
Palpation
Flexibility
Strength
Referred pain
Laboratory tests
Test | Important (%) | Not important (%) |
---|---|---|
Palpation to identify the site of injury | 97 | 3 |
Palpation to identify the injured muscle(s) | 95 | 5 |
Knee flexion against resistance | 94 | 6 |
Inspection of the posterior thigh | 93 | 7 |
Posture and gait inspection | 86 | 14 |
Hip extension against resistance | 86 | 14 |
Assessing referred pain | 86 | 14 |
Active straight leg raise | 85 | 15 |
Sit-and-reach test | 83 | 17 |
Passive knee extension | 81 | 19 |
Active knee extension | 80 | 20 |
Passive straight leg raise | 80 | 20 |
Take-off-the-shoe test/hamstring-drag test | 79 | 21 |
Prognostic laboratory tests | 13 | 87 |
Diagnostic laboratory tests | 4 | 96 |
Imaging
Imaging technique
Qualities | MRI | US |
---|---|---|
Low costs [13] | − | ++ |
Independence of the quality and experience of the physician [13] | ++ | − |
Ease of use | ± | ++ |
Ease of use for prognosis [13] | ++ | + |
+ | ± | |
Diagnosis of avulsion fractures [33] | + | ± |
Reproducibility | ++ | ± |
Dynamic assessment | − | ++ |
Availability | ± | ++ |
Evaluation of superficial structures [33] | + | ++ |
Evaluation of deep structures | ++ | ± |
Correct reflection of the extent of the injury [13] | ++ | ± |
Assessment time | ± | ++ |
Follow-up imaging [13] | ++ | + |
Time of imaging
Follow-up imaging
Prognostic factors
Factors associated with a longer rehabilitation period | Literature | Expert opinion |
---|---|---|
++ | ++ | |
++ | ++ | |
++ | + | |
+ | ++ | |
Persisting pain/restriction at ROM tests, strength tests and sport exercises | + | ++ |
Injury resulting from excessive slow-speed stretching [4] | + | + |
Persisting signs of injury on follow-up imaging [5] | + | + |
Injury to the m. biceps femoris [13] | ± | + |
Sports type [5] | ± | + |
More cranially palpated injury [5] | ± | + |
Large and deep haematoma | − | ++ |
Hamstring injury involving the free proximal tendon [6] | + | − |
Higher subjective pain score at the time of injury on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [57] | + | − |
Being unable to walk pain-free within 24 h of injury [61] | + | − |
Long period until initial treatment | − | + |
Low quality of the rehabilitation programme and minimal willingness of the patient to rehabilitate | − | + |