New England journal of medicine article evaluating the usefulness of meniscectomy is flawed.

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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Arthroscopic meniscal surgery versus conservative management in patients aged 40 years and older: a meta-analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2018
   Pooled it
2. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus placebo surgery for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 2-year follow-up of the randomised controlled trial.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2018
   Trial
3. [Meniscal lesion. A pre-osteoarthritic condition of the knee joint].Der Orthopade · 2017
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear.2013
• Comment on
  New England journal of medicine article evaluating the usefulness of meniscectomy is flawed.2014

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as