SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2016
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-rehabilitation research methodological quality: a systematic review with world region comparisons.
Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA systematic review and world region comparison of combined ACL reconstruction-rehabilitation studies was performed.
methodsStudies that combined ACL surgical-rehabilitative management published between January 1990 and June 2014 were evaluated. The combined terms "rehabilitation" and "anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" or "ACL reconstruction" were used to search the CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PEDro, and PubMed databases. A total of 5920 studies were initially identified. Inclusion criteria reduced this total to 299 studies that underwent abstract review. Following this, 155 studies underwent full text review and 109 met all inclusion criteria for Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) evaluation.
resultsOverall, MCMS were 74.0 ± 17 (mean ± standard deviation). Europe had slightly greater MCMS than North America (P = 0.041). Specific MCMS components that displayed significant world region differences included use of an independent investigator (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.047), including a patient-completed written assessment (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.009), allowing the patient to complete the assessment without medical, surgical, or rehabilitation personnel intervention (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.009), and use of well-described subject selection or inclusion criteria (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.004). Tegner Activity Scale (P = 0.042) and VAS-Pain Scale (P = 0.007) use was greater in Europe compared with other world regions. Primary rehabilitation theme frequency was comparable between world regions (n.s.).
conclusionRegional research methodological quality differences were observed. Europe displayed a slightly greater MCMS for combined ACL reconstruction-rehabilitation studies. With this information, research groups can design better team-based approaches to ensure that study findings provide sufficient significance to foster meaningful patient care improvements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25854496What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.