ReviewCureus2024
Effectiveness of Meniscus Root Tear Repair Versus Conservative Therapy and Adjunct Therapies: A Systematic Review.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of repair techniques for meniscal root tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Why Hoop Tension Matters: A Biomechanical Perspective on Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tears-A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review Comparing Surgical and Conservative Therapies in Treating Meniscus Root Tears.Kansas journal of medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The meniscus plays a vital role in knee biomechanics, particularly in load distribution and stability. Meniscus root tears (MRTs) compromise these functions, resulting in biomechanical alterations and knee osteoarthritis. The effectiveness of different MRT treatments is not yet well defined. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of MRT repair versus conservative therapy and conservative therapy versus multimodal or adjunct therapy in patients with MRTs. A systematic review of clinical studies was performed using electronic searches of PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PEDro databases. Two reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). The database search identified 3,837 articles, of which 11 (three randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and eight cohort studies) were relevant. MRT repair surgery and conservative treatment improved the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales for activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QOL). Multimodal or adjunct therapies also enhanced KOOS subscales for ADL and QOL. In the bias risk assessment, three RCTs were of high risk, five cohort studies were of high quality, and three were of moderate quality. Additionally, the certainty of evidence was very low for all comparisons in GRADE. Therefore, the effectiveness of MRT repair, conservative therapy, and multimodal therapy remains unclear owing to the risk of bias and low certainty of evidence. Whether MRT repair versus conservative therapy and conventional versus multimodal or adjunct therapy are more effective in improving ADL and QOL remains unclear. Future treatment decisions require long-term, high-quality research including controlled and randomized trials with large sample sizes.
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.