SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2025
Open and arthroscopic debridement for lateral epicondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on comparative studies.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 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.
- A Literature Review of Lateral Epicondylitis: Diagnosis, Risk Factors, Management and Treatment.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
objectiveTo systematically compare and meta-analyse the clinical efficacy of open and arthroscopic debridement for patients with lateral epicondylitis.
methodsA retrieval and systematic review of comparative studies of lateral epicondylitis treated with open versus arthroscopic debridement was conducted, and further pooled analysis was performed to compare the overall differences in clinical outcomes, including pain and elbow function scores, surgical time, complications and revision surgery rate.
resultsA total of 10 comparative studies involving 20,060 patients with lateral epicondylitis who were followed up for 12-93.6 months were included. Preliminary meta-analysis revealed that the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain was greater in the arthroscopic group than in the open group (MD: 0.01 [- 0.27-0.29], p = 0.93; I
conclusionsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we did not observe any significant advantage of arthroscopic debridement over open debridement in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis, but the surgical duration was significantly longer in the arthroscopic group, and we could assume that arthroscopic debridement may be more expensive. It was important to highlight that radial nerve injury represented the most prevalent complication within the arthroscopy group, which suggested that arthroscopic procedures for lateral epicondylitis should be performed in experienced hands. Therefore, the decision between arthroscopic and open debridement should take into account various factors, including the advantages of minimally invasive techniques, cost-benefit analysis, potential complications, and the surgeon's level of expertise.
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.