ArticleMedicine2022
Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in preventing the progression of osteoarthritis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Medicine, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- All-inside single-bundle and modified double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques guarantee stability and similar clinical results at over 5 year follow-up.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe knee has a high incidence of osteoarthritis (OA) following the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, which was reduced by ACL reconstruction including double-bundle (DB) techniques and single-bundle (SB) techniques. However, the effectiveness of preventing the progression of OA after the ACL reconstruction using DB and SB techniques is controversial.
methodsThis meta-analysis was performed following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. The databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library, were searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing DB with SB ACL reconstruction and reporting clinical outcomes of radiological OA were included. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The outcome was analyzed using the risk ratio (RR) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsTen Randomized controlled trials studies were included in this meta-analysis (accounting 1062 knees: 475 SB and 587 DB). The rate of radiological OA after the ACL reconstruction was 39% in SB group and 34% in DB group. The results of meta-analysis showed no difference in the occurrence of radiological OA between DB group and in SB group (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.30, P = .63), including subgroup of radiological scores of OA (subgroup of Minimal OA: RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.61-1.48; P = .82; subgroup of Notable OA: RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.78; P = .51), subgroup of follow-up time in 5 years and more than 5 years (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.20; P = .85), and subgroup of autograft graft for ACL (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79-1.19; P = .77). However, the DB group had less incidences of knee OA than the SB group in subgroup of less than 5 years (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.13-1.92; P = .004) and subgroup of allograft type (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.06-1.91; P = .02).
conclusionOverall, this meta-analysis showed that the DB technique was no more effective in preventing the progression of OA than the SB technique in ACL reconstruction at midterm follow-up.
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.