ReviewCureus2024
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used on Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Diagnostic value of postoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting clinical outcomes after meniscal repair: A retrospective cohort study.International orthopaedics · 2026Observational
- Which PROM Should Be Used to Address the Right Domain of Interest After ACL-R: A Comprehensive Review.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-reported knee-related rating scores and scales are widely used in reporting the clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. Understanding the psychometric properties of such measures is vital to recognizing the limitations that such measures may confer. The aim of this study was to review the available evidence as to the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in ACL surgery. Eleven studies were identified, the majority being prospective cohort studies. Eight English, ACL-specific patient-reported outcome measures were identified and evaluated: Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale (TAS), Cincinnati score, ACL-Quality of Life (QOL) score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form (SKF), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-ACL score, and ACL-Return to Sport Injury (RSI) scale. Only the Lysholm score, ACL-QOL, IKDC SKF, and ACL-RSI were evaluated for internal consistency, having an acceptable Cronbach's α (α>0.70). Most of the scoring systems were assessed for test-retest reliability, with four of them (Lysholm score, TAS, Cincinnati score, and IKDC SKF) having acceptable intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values (ICC > 0.70). Criterion validity was assessed for most measures with a good correlation with the IKDC. Effect sizes and standardized response means were large for three instruments that measured responsiveness (Lysholm score, TAS, and Cincinnati score) and moderate for one (ACL-QOL). Evidence is stronger and more robust for the Lysholm score, TAS, ACL-QOL, and IKDC SKF. However, there is variation in their psychometric properties as well as the aspect of knee-related health they are assessing. Hence, none can be universally applicable to all patients with ACL injuries. Recognizing these parameters is vital when choosing which instrument to use in reporting the outcomes of ACL injury or ACL surgery studies.
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.