Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32813044›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2021

Interference screws are more likely to perform better than cortical button and cross-pin fixation for hamstring autograft in ACL reconstruction: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Lei Yan, Jiao Jiao Li, Yuanyuan Zhu, Haifeng Liu, Ruxing Liu, Bin Zhao, Bin Wang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Lei YanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shanxi Medical University Second Affiliated Hospital, Taiyuan, China.
Jiao Jiao LiKolling Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Yuanyuan ZhuDepartment of Pharmacy, Shanxi Medical University Second Affiliated Hospital, Taiyuan, China.
Haifeng LiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shanxi Medical University Second Affiliated Hospital, Taiyuan, China.
Ruxing LiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shanxi Medical University Second Affiliated Hospital, Taiyuan, China.
Bin ZhaoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shanxi Medical University Second Affiliated Hospital, Taiyuan, China. zzbb2005@163.com.
Bin WangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shanxi Medical University Second Affiliated Hospital, Taiyuan, China. wangbin_pku@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5474-1002

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81802204
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is widely accepted as the first choice of treatment for ACL injury, but there is disagreement in the literature regarding the optimal femoral fixation method. This meta-analysis assesses the evidence surrounding three common femoral fixation methods: cortical button (CB), cross-pin (CP) and interference screws (IS).

methodsA systematic search was conducted in Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify studies with evidence level I or II that compared at least two femoral fixation methods with hamstring autograft for ACL reconstruction. Ten primary outcomes were collected. Risk of bias was assessed following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were estimated using random-effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. Probability of ranking best (ProBest) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were used to rank all treatments. Funnel plots were used to identify publication bias and small-study effects.

resultsSixteen clinical trials were included for analysis out of 2536 retrieved studies. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed no significant differences among the three fixation methods for the ten primary outcome measures. Based on the 10 outcome measures, the IS, CB and CP had the highest ProBest in 5, 5 and 0 outcomes, and the highest SUCRA values in 5, 4 and 1 outcomes, respectively. No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence, or publication bias was detected in the outcomes.

conclusionThere were no statistical differences in performance among the CP, CB and IS femoral fixation methods with hamstring autograft in ACL reconstruction, although the IS was more likely to perform better than CB and CP based on the analysis of outcome measures from the included studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAutograftsBayes TheoremBone NailsBone ScrewsFemaleFemurFracture Fixation, InternalHamstring MusclesHamstring TendonsHumansKnee JointMaleACL autograftAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionFemoral fixationNetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID32813044

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.