ReviewActa ortopedica brasileira2022
GRAFTS FOR ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.
Review in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study proposes to systematically review the literature and compare data on (1) function, (2) pain, (3) return to sport, and (4) complications after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with quadriceps tendon autograft (QT) and hamstring tendon autograft (HT). Methods: In June 2021, a systematic review of the EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS databases was performed, based on PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy included the keywords: "Previous Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction," "ACL reconstruction," "quadriceps tendon autograft," "quadriceps graft," "Hamstring-Tendon Autografts." Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager software (RevMan Web). Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding function according to Lysholm score (MD 3.01; CI-0.30, 6.33, p = 0.08), the presence of pain (RR 0.89; CI-0.57, 1.39, p = 0.60), and re-rupture (RR 0.60; IC-0.19, 1.88, p = 0.38). Conclusion: QT and HT autografts show comparatively good results in ACL reconstruction without significant differences regarding function, pain, and rupture after surgical intervention.
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.