Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33377000›Full record

ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2020

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Allografts and Autografts in Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Cecilia de Villiers, Gregor Goetz, Patrick Sadoghi, Sabine Geiger-Gritsch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Cecilia de VilliersHTA Austria - Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH (Former: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment), Vienna, Austria.
Gregor GoetzHTA Austria - Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH (Former: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment), Vienna, Austria.
Patrick SadoghiDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Sabine Geiger-GritschHTA Austria - Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH (Former: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment), Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the evidence of the effectiveness and safety of allografts compared to autografts in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

methodsFour electronic databases were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled studies. Crucial effectiveness outcomes included patient-reported function, activity level and symptoms, clinical knee stability, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction. Safety was evaluated through graft failures, revisions, reruptures and complications. The internal validity of the studies was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the strength of the evidence was judged according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

resultsTwo randomized controlled studies were included: 50 patients were analyzed in the allograft group and 58 in the autograft group. No statistically significant postoperative differences were reported between the groups for patient-reported function, activity levels or symptoms. One study reported a statistically significant difference in instrumented postoperative anteroposterior knee laxity favoring stability in autografts. This difference is, however, not relevant in the clinical setting. Insufficient evidence was found to judge safety outcomes and because complications were poorly measured, and none of the studies reported on graft failure, revision or rerupture rates. The studies were judged with unclear to high risk of bias. The strength of the evidence for effectiveness and safety was judged to be low to very low, according to GRADE.

conclusionsAllografts may be comparable to autografts for crucial effectiveness outcomes, but insufficient evidence was found to judge crucial safety outcomes due to poor reporting of safety measures and outcomes. Results should be interpreted with caution because there is lack of good-quality evidence to support the superiority of allografts over autografts due to the high risk of bias in the primary studies and overall very low strength of the body of evidence according to GRADE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of Level II studies.

Identifiers

PMID33377000
PMCPMC7754607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.