ReviewCureus2025
Rectus Abdominis Repair Compared to Posterior Wall Mesh Reinforcement in Athletes With Sportsman's Hernia: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Diagnostic Musculoskeletal Ultrasound in the Evaluation of the Rectus Abdominis.International journal of sports physical therapy · 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
Athletic pubalgia is a relatively uncommon injury that is not fully understood. There are few high-level studies comparing treatments of athletic pubalgia, and this investigation seeks to utilize original articles to compare two common techniques for treatment of athletic pubalgia. The purpose of this study is to compare two prominent procedures, i.e., rectus abdominus repair and posterior wall reinforcement, through a systematic review. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were identified and then applied to search strategies in PubMed and MEDLINE. Two reviewers screened articles based on the agreed-upon criteria in a primary screen of titles and abstracts and a secondary screen of full-text articles. A total of 59 full-text articles were reviewed, and 13 were selected for this study. The study designs included seven prospective cohort studies, five retrospective cohort studies, and one randomized control trial. There were five studies with rectus abdominus repair intervention and eight studies with posterior wall reinforcement intervention. The median age range was 22-32. The mean follow-up time ranged from one month to 12.5 years. The success rate ranged from 76% to 96% for rectus abdominus repair and from 72% to 98% for posterior wall reinforcement. The two procedures performed about the same as the success rate for both procedures ranged from about 70% to 90%. The lack of standardization in clinical outcomes makes comparison across studies difficult. It is hard to discern which procedure actually performs better, and thus future research in this area needs to be conducted to focus on more specific outcomes, frequent follow-up, and standardization of outcome measures.
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.