ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2016
Kinematic outcomes following ACL reconstruction.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2016. 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.
- Postbiotics in the Bakery Products: Applications and Nutritional Values.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2025Review
- In situ repair of segmental loss posterior lateral meniscal root tears outperforms meniscofemoral ligament imbrication in the ACL reconstructed knee.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Molecular influence of anterior cruciate ligament tear remnants on chondrocytes: a biologic connection between injury and osteoarthritis.Osteoarthritis and cartilage · 2018Article
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
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction aims to restore the translational and rotational motion to the knee joint that is lost after injury. However, despite technical advancements, clinical outcomes are less than ideal, particularly in return to previous activity level. A major issue is the inability to standardize treatment protocols due to variations in materials and approaches used to accomplish ACL reconstruction. These include surgical techniques such as the transtibial and anteromedial portal methods that are currently under use and the wide availability of graft types that will be used to reconstruct the ACL. In addition, concomitant soft tissue injuries to the menisci and capsule are frequently present after ACL injury and, if left unaddressed, can lead to persistent instability even after the ACL has been reconstructed. Advances in the field of biomechanics that help to objectively measure motion of the knee joint may provide more precise data than current subjective clinical measurements. These technologies include extra-articular motion capture systems that measure the movement of the tibia in relation to the femur. With data gathered from these devices, a threshold for satisfactory knee stability may be established in order to correctly identify a successful reconstruction following ACL injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.