Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29241343›Full record

SynthesisCartilage2018

Can Biologic Augmentation Improve Clinical Outcomes Following Microfracture for Symptomatic Cartilage Defects of the Knee? A Systematic Review.

Armin Arshi, Peter D Fabricant, Derek E Go, Riley J Williams, David R McAllister, Kristofer J Jones

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cartilage, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Management of the Failed OCD.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Armin Arshi1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Peter D Fabricant2 Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Derek E Go3 College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Riley J Williams2 Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
David R McAllister1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kristofer J Jones1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of California, Los Angeles · USCornell University · USHospital for Special Surgery · USUniversity of Cincinnati Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes following microfracture augmented with biological adjuvants (MFX+) compared with microfracture (MFX) alone. Design The MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for clinical studies on MFX+ for chondral defects of the knee. Study characteristics and clinical outcome score data were collected. Subjective synthesis was performed using data from randomized controlled studies to determine effect size of MFX+ procedures performed with either injectable or scaffold-based augmentation compared with MFX alone. Results A total of 18 articles reporting on 625 patients (491 MFX+, 134 MFX) were identified. Six studies were level II evidence and 1 study was level I evidence. Mean patient age range was 26 to 51 years, and mean follow-up ranged from 2 to 5 years. All studies demonstrated significant improvement in reported clinical outcome scores at follow-up after MFX+ therapy, and 87% of patients reported satisfaction with treatment. The most commonly reported treatment complication was postoperative stiffness (3.9% of patients). Subjective synthesis on randomized controlled trials demonstrated that 2/2 injectable MFX+ interventions had significantly greater improvements in International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC; P = 0.004) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS; P = 0.012) scores compared with MFX alone, while 2/2 trials on scaffolding MFX+ adjuvants showed comparable postoperative improvements. Conclusions MFX+ biological adjuvants are safe supplements to marrow stimulation for treating cartilage defects in the adult knee. Early literature is heterogenous and extremely limited in quality. Individual trials report both equivalent and superior clinical outcomes compared with MFX alone, making definitive conclusions on the efficacy of MFX+ difficult without higher quality evidence.

Indexed as

AdultBiological ProductsBone MarrowCartilage, ArticularCartilage DiseasesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesFractures, StressHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBiological Productsarticular cartilagebiomaterialsmarrow stimulationmicrofracture

Identifiers

PMID29241343
PMCPMC5871129
OpenAlexW2773369492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.