Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37284137›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2023

Trends in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Alexander N Berk, Dana P Piasecki, James E Fleischli, David P Trofa, Bryan M Saltzman

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06768957 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of the "Single Hop Test" Combined With a Cognitive Task, to Optimize Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

TypeinterventionalSponsorSimon VALOTRan2025 to 2025Enrolled31ConditionsACL Reconstruction, Cognitive Function, Single Leg Hop Firm Surface, Testing Effect of InterventionArmsSingle leg hop for distance, Single leg hop for distance plus cognitive task
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alexander N BerkOrthoCarolina Sports Medicine Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Dana P PiaseckiOrthoCarolina Sports Medicine Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
James E FleischliOrthoCarolina Sports Medicine Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
David P TrofaDepartment of Orthopaedics, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Bryan M SaltzmanOrthoCarolina Sports Medicine Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

anterior cruciate ligament reconstructionkneeoutcomespatient-reported outcomereturn to sportsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37284137
PMCPMC10240869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.