ArticleMedicine2020
Comparative risk-benefit profiles of different femoral drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury experiences about 200,000 isolated cases annually, and ACL reconstruction has become the gold standard for the restoration of stability and functionality. In view of that incorrect graft placement is a common cause of ACL reconstruction failure, it is critically important to ensure that the tibial and femoral tunnels are properly placed during the operation. Therefore, we intend to conduct a network meta-analysis to comparatively evaluate the clinical outcomes among the different surgical techniques in ACL reconstruction.
methodsEmbase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library will be searched through to retrieve the relevant literature up to April 2020. The outcomes include the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective/objective score, Lachman test, Lysholm score, laxity of knee joint, pivot-shift test, Tegner activity scale, and the number of adverse events. A Bayesian hierarchical framework will be used to evaluate the comparative efficacy among different fixation devices. Cochrane Q test and I statistics will be applied to evaluate the heterogeneity, and the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool will be employed to evaluate the study quality and the risk of bias.
resultsThe comparative risk-benefit profiles of different femoral drilling techniques will be evaluated based on the existing evidence, in order to summarize a prioritization regimen.
conclusionFindings from this network meta-analysis will provide useful reference to patients, surgeons, and guideline makers in the related fields. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF) Preregistration. April 20, 2020. osf.io/uzahs.
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.