ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2022
Trends in Level of Evidence of Systematic Reviews in Sports Medicine, 2010-2020 : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Good clinical and radiological results following remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Pooled it
- Multiple revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: not the best but still good.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Pooled it
- Bibliometric analysis of theJSES international · 2026Article
- American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews.Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2026 · on this mapReview
- The Sport Publication Observational Research Tool (SPORT): An Objective Tool to Score the Methodological Quality of Observational Clinical Sports Medicine Research.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- An 11-Year (2012-2022) review of Journal of Athletic Training publication study designs and sample sizes.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Surgeon Preferences Worldwide in Wound Drain Utilization in Open Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Pathologies.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Level of evidence in high impact surgical literature: the way forward.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
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
Background: Popularization of systematic reviews has been met with controversy because of concerns that the primary literature for certain topics may not be suited for systematic review and meta-analysis. Purpose: To assess the rate of publication of systematic reviews based on their level of evidence (LOE) in influential orthopaedic sports medicine journals and commonly studied topics in sports medicine. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: An electronic search was performed using the PubMed database of studies published from January 2010 to December 2020. The advanced search function was used to identify systematic reviews from the Results: A total of 2162 systematic reviews were included in this study. From 2010 to 2020, the rate of publication of LOE 3-5 systematic reviews increased significantly among most of the surveyed journals ( Conclusion: The rate of publication of LOE 3-5 systematic reviews exponentially increased in orthopaedic sports medicine journals over the past decade, outpacing the publication rate of LOE 1-2 systematic reviews.
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.