ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2023
Trends in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06768957 (Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of the "Single Hop Test" Combined With a Cognitive Task, to Optimize Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 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.
Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of the "Single Hop Test" Combined With a Cognitive Task, to Optimize Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thresholds for minimum clinically important difference, minimal important change and patient acceptable symptom state for the ACL-RSI and the K-SES in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Remnant-preserving selective posterolateral bundle reconstruction for partial ACL tears: a retrospective comparative study of functional outcomes, graft maturation, and return-to-sport rates with and without biologic augmentation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Multiparametric Quantitative MRI Evaluation of Graft Maturity Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A One-Year Prospective Observational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Which PROM Should Be Used to Address the Right Domain of Interest After ACL-R: A Comprehensive Review.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
- No differences at return to sport in psychological profiles and results of muscle function tests between females with and without a second ipsilateral or contralateral ACL injury after ACL reconstruction.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Optimizing return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A multi-factorial umbrella review on rehabilitation strategies.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Review
- Predictors of survey non-response two years after hip arthroscopy: Results from an institutional prospective registry.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds for the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale in Patients After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Combining preoperative expectations and postoperative met expectations to predict patient-reported outcomes after knee surgery.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of KOOS-ACL questionnaire.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the prevalence of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to evaluate results after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there exists little standardization in how these metrics are reported, which can make wider comparisons difficult. Purpose: To systematically review the literature on ACL reconstruction and report on the variability and temporal trends in PRO utilization. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: We queried the PubMed Central and MEDLINE databases from inception through August 2022 to identify clinical studies reporting ≥1 PRO after ACL reconstruction. Only studies with ≥50 patients and a mean 24-month follow-up were considered for inclusion. Year of publication, study design, PROs, and reporting of return to sport (RTS) were documented. Results: Across 510 studies, 72 unique PROs were identified, the most common of which were the International Knee Documentation Committee score (63.3%), Tegner Activity Scale (52.4%), Lysholm score (51.0%), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (35.7%). Of the identified PROs, 89% were utilized in <10% of studies. The most common study designs were retrospective (40.6%), prospective cohort (27.1%), and prospective randomized controlled trials (19.4%). Some consistency in PROs was observed among randomized controlled trials, with the most common PROs being the International Knee Documentation Committee score (71/99, 71.7%), Tegner Activity Scale (60/99, 60.6%), and Lysholm score (54/99, 54.5%). The mean number of PROs reported per study across all years was 2.89 (range, 1-8), with an increase from 2.1 (range, 1-4) in studies published before 2000 to 3.1 (range, 1-8) in those published after 2020. Only 105 studies (20.6%) discretely reported RTS rates, with more studies utilizing this metric after 2020 (55.1%) than before 2000 (15.0%). Conclusion: There exists marked heterogeneity and inconsistency regarding which validated PROs are used in studies related to ACL reconstruction. Significant variability was observed, with 89% of measures being reported in <10% of studies. RTS was discretely reported in only 20.6% of studies. Greater standardization of outcomes reporting is required to better promote objective comparisons, understand technique-specific outcomes, and facilitate value determination.
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.