Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30874836›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2019

Autograft or allograft for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

Hema Mistry, Andrew Metcalfe, Jill Colquitt, Emma Loveman, Nick A Smith, Pamela Royle, Norman Waugh

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06636045 (Effect of Blood Flow Restriction), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06636045 enrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) on Rehabilitation Protocols Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) With Quadricep Autograft

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterRan2024 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsAutografts, Blood Flow Restriction Therapy, Rehabilitation Outcome, Quadriceps Muscle StrengthArmsNot applicable- observational study
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors.

Hema MistryDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Gibbet Hill Campus, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. hema.mistry@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5023-1160
Andrew MetcalfeWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick Medical School, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Jill ColquittEffective Evidence, Waterlooville, Hampshire, PO8 9SE, UK.
Emma LovemanEffective Evidence, Waterlooville, Hampshire, PO8 9SE, UK.
Nick A SmithDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.
Pamela RoyleDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Gibbet Hill Campus, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Norman WaughDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Gibbet Hill Campus, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of allografts versus autografts in the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligaments.

methodsSystematic review of comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis.

resultsBoth autograft and allograft reconstruction are highly effective. Recent studies show little difference in failure rates between autografts and allografts (about 6% and 7%, respectively). In cost-effectiveness analysis, the price differential is the main factor, making autografts the first choice. However, there will be situations, particularly in revision ACL reconstruction, where an allograft may be preferred, or may be the only reasonable option available.

conclusionIn ACL reconstruction, clinical results with autografts are as good as or slightly better than with allografts. Allografts cost more, indicating that autografts are more cost-effective and should usually be first choice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Indexed as

AllograftsAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAutograftsCost-Benefit AnalysisGraft SurvivalHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPostoperative ComplicationsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsReoperation

Identifiers

PMID30874836
PMCPMC6541574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.