Return-to-play decisions varied across sports medicine professions
A review described differing priorities in injury timelines, physical testing, and psychological readiness, with limited reporting of formal decision frameworks.
Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.
The 30-second takeaway
Practitioners drew on similar return-to-play criteria but gave them different weight. Studies of medical doctors more often described injury and postoperative timelines than studies of other practitioner groups. Team studies also reported psychological readiness and sport-specific testing. The review describes reported decision practices; it does not establish which approach best prevents reinjury or supports return to sport.
The review combined varied study designs, which the authors identify as a limitation. Surgeon practices and knee injuries were prominent, so the literature was unevenly distributed across professional groups and injuries.
What the review described
This abstract-based synthesis examined reported decision practices after musculoskeletal injury. It gathered descriptions across practitioner groups, injury locations, and activity levels to characterize the criteria used when considering a return to sport.
Reporting has limits
Formal frameworks and input from other practitioners appeared infrequently in the publications. That describes what these studies reported; it does not establish how often such practices occur across all sports medicine settings.
The original publication
Ready or Not; A Narrative Synthesis of Sports Medicine Practitioners' Practices During Return to Play in the Management of Musculoskeletal Injuries.
Chetty M, Roe G, Jones B et al.
Eur J Sport Sci · 2025
- PubMed ID
- 41138195
- Record checked
AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.
One more question, understood.
Keep track of the research you’ve explored.