Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32753448›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Meniscal Tear Outcome (METRO) review: a protocol for a systematic review summarising the clinical course and patient experiences of meniscal tears in the current literature.

Imran Ahmed, Chetan Khatri, Nicholas Parsons, Charles E Hutchinson, Sophie Staniszewska, Andrew James Price, Andrew Metcalfe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Arthroscopic outside-in "two-needle suture" technique for anterior horn tears of the lateral meniscus.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2025
    Article
  3. Collagen-Based Scaffolds for Meniscal Repair and Regeneration.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. 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.

Imran AhmedClinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK imran.ahmed4@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0003-2774-9954
Chetan KhatriTrauma and Orthopaedics, --University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, West Midlands, UK.
Nicholas ParsonsWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Charles E HutchinsonWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Sophie StaniszewskaWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Andrew James PriceNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4258-5866
Andrew MetcalfeClinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4515-8202

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2018-11-ST2-030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMeniscal tears are a common knee injury with an incidence of 60 per 100 000. Management of meniscal tears can include either non-operative measures or operative procedures such as arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). Despite substantial research evaluating the effectiveness of APM in the recent past, little is known about the clinical course or the experiences of patients with a meniscal tear.

aimTo summarise the short to long-term patterns of variability in outcome in patients with a meniscal tear.To summarise the evidence on patient experiences of meniscal tears. In particular, we will focus on patient experiences of treatment options, treatment pathways and their views of the outcomes used in meniscal tear research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two search strategies will be developed to identify citations from EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Sociofile. The date of our planned search is 14 August 2020. For the quantitative review we will identify studies reporting patient-reported outcome measures in patients after a meniscal tear. The standardised mean change will be used to assess the variation in size of response and summarise the overall response to each treatment option. All studies will undergo quality assessment using either the Cochrane risk of bias or the Newcastle-Ottawa tool.A qualitative systematic review will be used to identify studies reporting views and experiences of patients with a meniscal tear. All studies will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool and if sufficient data are present a meta-synthesis will be performed to identify first, second and third-order constructs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Given the nature of this study, no formal ethical approval will be sought. Results from the review will be disseminated at national conferences and will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Lay summaries will be freely available via the study Twitter page. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019122179.

Indexed as

Knee InjuriesTibial Meniscus InjuriesArthroscopyHumansMeniscectomyPatient Reported Outcome Measureskneemusculoskeletal disordersorthopaedic & trauma surgery

Identifiers

PMID32753448
PMCPMC7406020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.