ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Return to Work After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. 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.
- The Association of Waiting Time with Postoperative Health Care Use and Sickness Absences: A Register Study in Finland.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The timing of return to work (RTW) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) is a less studied milestone compared with return to sports. Purpose: To systematically review the rate and postoperative timing of RTW after ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid databases for clinical studies reporting RTW after ACLR, and 806 studies were identified in August 2022. A quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index of Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) grading system. The following data were extracted from studies: study characteristics, cohort demographics, ACLR technique, concomitant meniscal and/or cartilage procedures, preoperative patient-reported outcomes, rates of RTW, and days required for RTW after ACLR. Results: A total of 13 studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 1791 patients (86.4% male). Wide variability was observed in the methodological quality of the assessed studies (MINORS score range, 8-17). Hamstring tendon (HT) autograft was used in 76.8% (n = 1377; mean age, 30.5 years old), allograft in 17.1% (n = 308; mean age, 33.1 years old), the ligament advanced reinforcement system in 2.5% (n = 46; mean age, 33.2 years old), bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft in 2% (n = 36; mean age, 28.5 years old), and quadriceps tendon autograft in 1.3% (n = 24; mean age, 24.1 years old). Among the included patients, 99.1% (n = 1781) reported successful RTW after surgery. The mean time to RTW was 84.2 days (range, 31.4-107.1 days) for HT and 69.5 days (range, 49-56.6 days) for allograft. Conclusion: While data regarding work intensity before and after ACL injury were absent, our study results suggested that patients most often RTW within 90 days of surgery. Patients with allograft ACLR may RTW earlier than patients undergoing ACLR with HT autograft.
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.