ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Patient Perception of Allograft Versus Autograft in ACL Reconstruction Using a Validated Online Survey Marketplace.
Article 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.
- Patient Perception of Autograft Options in ACL Reconstruction Using a Validated Online Survey Marketplace.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Little is known regarding the opinions of the general population on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft options. Purpose: To evaluate the general population's perception of the use of allografts versus autografts in ACL reconstruction using a previously validated online marketplace platform. Methods: A prospective 34-question survey was distributed via the online marketplace. After collecting baseline demographics, participant preferences for ACL reconstruction with an allograft or autograft were established. All respondents completed a preeducation survey, reviewed an evidence-based education sheet, and completed a posteducation survey to assess their understanding. Upon completion, participants were asked which graft they would prefer. Participants were then asked if they would be willing to change their preference based on surgeon recommendation. Finally, participants were asked to rank the factors from the education sheet that were most influential. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Results: There were 491 participants that completed the survey (mean age, 39.9 years [range, 19-72 years]; 244 male, 241 female, and 6 nonbinary/third-gender participants). Before reading the education sheet, 276 (56%) reported no graft preferences, 146 (30%) preferred autograft, and 69 (14%) preferred allograft. After reading the provided sheet, 226 (46%) participants preferred autograft, 185 (38%) preferred allograft, and 80 (16%) had no preference. The mean score on the preeducation test was 45%, and the mean score on the posteducation test was significantly greater (61%; Conclusion: Education resulted in a greater number of individuals' reporting a preference in graft type (either allograft or autograft) compared with preinformation questioning. In addition, 83.9% of the participants were willing to switch their graft choice if recommended by their surgeon.
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.