Lateral tibiofemoral morphometry does not identify risk of re-ruptures after ACL reconstruction in children and adolescents.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Morphometric Evaluation of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Orientation and Tibial Footprint Location Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
   Article
2. A small notch width index, steeper medial and lateral tibial slope and higher lateral/medial tibial slope ratio are relevant knee morphological factors for ACL injuries in skeletally immature patients-A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025
   Article
3. No clinically relevant relationship between different quantitative measurement methods of the lateral femoral condyle morphology on lateral radiographs in anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.