SynthesisMusculoskeletal surgery2025
Inconsistencies in clinically significant outcome metrics for knee cartilage repair: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
To systematically review the variability of reporting of clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) including minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and threshold calculation methods following surgical treatments for cartilage defects of the knee. A systematic review was performed using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search was performed on August 12th, 2024, using the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus online databases for human clinical studies with publication dates ranging from 2010 to 2024 reporting on MCID, SCB, or PASS following surgical treatments for cartilage defects of the knee. Study demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), CSO thresholds, and methods of CSO calculation were collected. A total of 19 studies (n = 3659 patients) with an average follow-up of 36.5 months were included. A total of 14 (93.3%) studies reported MCID, six (31.8%) studies reported SCB, and five (26.3%) studies reported PASS. Of the included studies, 16 (80%) referenced another study for calculating their CSO whereas three (20%) studies calculated their own CSO. A total of 16 different PROMs were reported among the included studies. Eight studies utilized the anchor-based method for CSO calculation, ten studies used both the anchor and the distribution-based methods for calculation, while only one study used the distribution-based method alone. There is considerable variation in the reporting and calculation methods of MCID, SCB, and PASS for different PROMs following surgical treatments for cartilage defects of the knee.Level of Evidence: IV, Systematic Review of Level I-IV studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39955404What 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.