ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Variability in the Spectrum of Reporting on the Schenck KD I Classification in the Orthopaedic Literature: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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 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.
- Diagnosis, Treatment, and Current Controversies in Multiligament Knee Injuries: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Multiligament-injured knee: what the general orthopedic surgeon should know.EFORT open reviews · 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
Background: There has been a marked increase in the number of Schenck knee dislocation (KD) I injuries reported in the multiligament knee (MLK) injury (MLKI) and KD literature. Purpose: To examine the heterogeneity of the Schenck KD I classification in the MLKI and KD literature. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted for all studies that investigated KDs and/or MLKIs, utilized the Schenck or an MLKI classification system, and included patients with KD I or MLK 1 injuries. Pooled analysis determined the total number of KD I or MLK 1 injuries and the specific ligamentous tear patterns. Binary meta-analyses of the studies that reported neurovascular injury within each Schenck KD class compared the pooled odds ratio (OR) of vascular and neurological injury in unicruciate (KD I) and bicruciate (KD II-IV) injuries. Results: Included were 50 studies in which 3460 KD I injuries were reported out of 7872 KDs and MLKIs (43.9%). Of the 2912 patients reported to have had a Schenck KD I injury, 26 patients (0.9%) had a clinically and/or radiographically confirmed tibiofemoral KD. The overall prevalence of Schenck KD I injury with documented tibiofemoral KD was 26 of 7872 (0.3%). A total of 22 studies (n = 1702 patients) reported the specific ligamentous tear patterns; the most common patterns were posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)/lateral collateral ligament (LCL) (n = 526; 30.9%), anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)/LCL (n = 488; 28.7%), ACL/medial collateral ligament (MCL) (n = 408; 24.0%), and PCL/MCL (n = 198; 11.6%). Meta-analyses demonstrated that when compared with bicruciate KD or MLKI, unicruciate KD or MLKI was significantly less likely to have concomitant vascular injury (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15-0.51; Conclusion: The number of true, clinically and/or radiographically confirmed unicruciate KDs was extremely rare, representing <1% of all reported Schenck KD I injuries. A misappropriation of these injury patterns as true KDs may be taking place, affecting outcome studies and potentially biasing published clinical results. An MLKI classification system must document whether a confirmed KD has occurred.
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.