Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37947829›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2023

Functional performance tests, clinical measurements, and patient-reported outcome measures do not correlate as outcomes 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Mustafa Al-Gburi, Jakob Bredahl Kristiansen, Karl Bang Christensen, Michael Rindom Krogsgaard

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in Jordan: insights into clinical presentation, patient profiles, and postoperative outcomes.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mustafa Al-GburiSections for Sports Traumatology, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. Mustafa.hamid.hussein.al-gburi@regionh.dk.
Jakob Bredahl KristiansenSections for Sports Traumatology, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Karl Bang ChristensenSections for Sports Traumatology, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Michael Rindom KrogsgaardSections for Sports Traumatology, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9976-4865
Bispebjerg Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are evaluated by laxity measures, functional tests, and patients' perception by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). It is not known, if one of these evaluation instruments is representative or if outcome scores from all must be reported to obtain a full evaluation of the condition. The aim was to study the correlations between these three types of outcomes 1 year after primary ACLR.

methodAll adult patients (range 18-45 years) who had an ACLR between 1.1.2019 and 31.12.2021 were offered 1-year follow-up by an independent observer. Preoperative information about knee laxity and peroperative information about the condition of menisci and cartilage were registered. At 1-year follow-up clinical and instrumented knee stability and function assessed by four different hop tests were registered. Patients completed four PROMs (the Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Numeric-Entity Evaluation Score (KNEES-ACL), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Lysholm score) and Tegner activity scale and answered anchor questions regarding satisfaction and willingness to repeat the operation.

resultsA total of 190 adults attended the 1-year follow-up and 151 had all assessments. There were only a few positive and weak correlations between performance tests and PROMS and between clinical measurements and PROMS (r = 0.00-0.38), and the majority were of negligible strength. Tegner score had in general the highest correlation (low to moderate). The highest correlation was 0.53 (moderate) between the anchor question about patient satisfaction and Lysholm/IKDC scores. There was no difference in the correlations depending on meniscal condition.

conclusionsIn ACLR patients there was no clinically relevant correlation between scores obtained by PROMs, a battery of functional performance tests and instrumented laxity of the knee at 1-year follow-up. Therefore, one type of outcome cannot represent the others. This is an argument for always to include and report all three types of outcomes, and conclusions based on one type of outcome may not be sufficient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionMeniscusAdultHumansKnee JointLysholm Knee ScorePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresTreatment OutcomeAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionCorrelationsFunctional testsLaxityOutcomePatient reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID37947829
PMCPMC10719130
OpenAlexW4388566343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.