ArticleJournal of hand and microsurgery2025
A systematic review of systematic reviews comparing simple trapeziectomy versus trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis.
Article in Journal of hand and microsurgery, 2025. 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.
- Trapeziectomy With Hemi-Abductor Pollicis Longus and SutureTape InternalBrace: A Technical Note and Case Series.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Patient Perspectives After Trapeziectomy Versus Carpometacarpal Prosthesis: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis of Ten Bilateral Cases.Journal of clinical 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The outcomes of simple trapeziectomy (T) versus trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) for trapeziometacarpal (TMC) osteoarthritis have been compared in several systematic reviews (SRs) with conflicting results across the various outcomes studied. Despite a lack of conclusions regarding the superiority of one treatment versus the other, LRTI remains the most popular surgical option. This raises the questions of whether published SRs are of high methodological quality, and whether discordant conclusions can be attributed to differences in methodologic quality. To answer these, a SR of SRs comparing T vs LRTI was conducted. Methods: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of SRs was performed from 1946 to September 18, 2023. SRs directly comparing T vs LRTI for TMC osteoarthritis were selected for inclusion. Methodological characteristics, results and conclusions of the selected SRs were extracted. Outcomes and conclusions were assessed for disagreement in the context of methodological differences. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Results: Seven SRs, published between 2004 and 2022, were included. Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, all seven SRs received a quality rating of "critically low" due to weaknesses in more than one critical domain. The most frequent weaknesses in critical domains included: failure to indicate that the review followed an Conclusions: SRs comparing T vs LRTI have had methodological or reporting flaws which limit confidence in results. Future SRs should ensure a rigorous methodology is followed and clearly reported in the publication.
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.