SynthesisBMC psychology2025
The utility of psychological readiness scales in predicting return to sport: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sports Trauma: From Prevention to Surgery and Return to Sport.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cross-cultural translation, adaptation, and validation of the Chinese versions of the athlete fear avoidance questionnaire and fear of return to sport scale.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Kinesiophobia and Psychological Readiness of Return to Sport in High-Performance Judokas After an Injury: A Cross-Sectional Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis review aims to synthesise evidence on the predictive role of self-reported psychological readiness measures in return to sport (RTS) after sports injury.
methodsThe study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) statement, employing both electronic database searches (including Web of Science, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus) and manual searches. The inclusion criteria for this study comprised two key elements: (1) articles published in international journals in English; (2) articles utilising psychological readiness for RTS scales in their research. The exclusion criteria included the following: (1) articles unrelated to sports injury topics; (2) articles about concussions; (3) psychological readiness unrelated to RTS; (4) grey literature; (5) review studies; (6) articles utilising psychological readiness for RTS scales that were non-English translations; and (7) articles examined mental states after sport injuries using only one type of measure, either emotional or self-efficacy rather than a comprehensive assessment. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
resultsSixty-two relevant studies were included. The results of the systematic review indicated that psychological readiness self-assessments can be categorised into four key domains: 1) predicting physical recovery outcomes (n = 24), 2) predicting return to sport practices (n = 18), 3) predicting quality of life-related to injury and reinjury rates (n = 7), and 4) predicting post-return sport performance levels and physical activity levels (n = 13).
conclusionThis review underscores the value of psychological readiness assessments as predictors of RTS outcomes. The findings support their clinical utility, while also highlighting the need for further research into injury-specific and objective measures to enhance assessment accuracy. This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42025642947).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.