ReviewCureus2024
Double-Bundle Versus Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Knee Stability Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Differences in the collagen of semitendinosus tendon in patients with and without general joint laxity.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction techniques in improving knee stability and functional outcomes in patients with ACL injuries. A structured search across PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library identified studies comparing SB and DB ACL reconstructions. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, including randomized controlled trials, prospective, and retrospective studies. The primary outcomes analyzed were the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm score, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test results. Meta-analytic methods included calculating standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) alongside assessments of heterogeneity using the I² statistic. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between SB and DB techniques for IKDC subjective scores (SMD: -0.14, 95% CI: -0.68 to 0.39, p = 0.59) or Lysholm scores (SMD: -0.18, 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.02, p = 0.08). Lachman test results also indicated no significant differences between techniques (pooled OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.70-1.47, p = 0.92). Pivot-shift test outcomes similarly revealed comparable rotational stability (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.70-1.43, p = 1.00). Moderate heterogeneity was observed across analyses (I² = 37%-43%), reflecting variations in study designs and patient populations. SB and DB ACL reconstruction techniques achieve similar functional outcomes and knee stability, with no significant differences in Lachman test results, pivot-shift outcomes, or patient-reported measures. Further research with standardized methodologies is needed to verify these findings across diverse populations.
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.