ArticleWorld journal of orthopedics2024
Does progress in microfracture techniques necessarily translate into clinical effectiveness?
Article in World journal of orthopedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultitudinous advancements have been made to the traditional microfracture (MFx) technique, which have involved delivery of various acellular 2
aimTo comparatively analyze the functional, radiological, and histological outcomes, and complications of various generations of MFx available for the treatment of cartilage defects.
methodsA systematic review was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. Patients of any age and sex with cartilage defects undergoing any form of MFx were considered for analysis. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting functional, radiological, histological outcomes or complications of various generations of MFx for the management of cartilage defects. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in Stata and Cochrane's Confidence in NMA approach was utilized for appraisal of evidence.
resultsForty-four RCTs were included in the analysis with patients of mean age of 39.40 (± 9.46) years. Upon comparing the results of the other generations with MFX-I as a constant comparator, we noted a trend towards better pain control and functional outcome (KOOS, IKDC, and Cincinnati scores) at the end of 1-, 2-, and 5-year time points with MFx-III, although the differences were not statistically significant (
conclusionThe higher generations of traditional MFx technique utilizing acellular and cellular components to augment its potential in the management of cartilage defects has shown only marginal improvement in the clinical and radiological outcomes.
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.