ArticleOpen medicine (Warsaw, Poland)2021
Prediction of improvement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Article in Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical Analysis After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction at the Return-to-Sport Time Point.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Intraoperative Administration of Adipose Stromal Vascular Fraction Does Not Improve Functional Outcomes in Young Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- The Application of Artificial Intelligence in Football Risk Prediction.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- Healthcare Data-Based Prediction Algorithm for Potential Knee Joint Injury of Football Players.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe retrospective investigation was carried out to assess whether subjects who fulfilled our proposed recruitment criteria responded more favorably to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) than those who did not.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 109 skeletally mature subjects (78 men and 31 women) according to the following proposed criteria of recruitment: (1) pre-injury Tegner activity score ≥7 and a wish to return to a professional sports activity, (2) residual knee instability following injury and/or (3) age <20 years at the operation. The primary outcome was an improvement between assessment A (before operation) and B (mean follow-up of 1.6 years) in the average score for four of the five Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, covering pain, symptoms, difficulty in sports and recreational activities, and quality of life (KOOS
resultsThe proposed recruitment criteria for ACLR were met by 58 subjects (53%). There were 49 subjects (45%) who improved between assessment A and B. Subjects who met proposed recruitment criteria were more likely to improve clinically after ACLR (OR 5.7, 95% CI 2.5-13.3).
conclusionsFulfillment of proposed recruitment criteria was a strong predictive factor for outcome improvement in short- to medium-term follow-up after ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case-control study. Level of evidence 3.
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.