ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
4-Strand hamstring versus single-bundle quadriceps tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at 2 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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.
- Superior long-term stability and function associated with femoral cortical button versus interference screw fixation in ACL reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- 4-Strand hamstring versus single-bundle quadriceps tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at 2 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the 2-year postoperative outcomes of hamstring tendon (HT) grafts to quadriceps tendon (QT) grafts in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We hypothesised no significant differences between the two methods. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Five online databases (Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) were screened for prospective randomised controlled trials (RCT). IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner, side-to-side KT-1000 scores and ages were collected. Statistical analysis was conducted with SPSS v29. Between the two groups, a test of between-subgroup homogeneity Results: Five RCTs were included in the final analysis. The HT group included 87 patients, and the QT group included 93 patients. The mean ages for the HT and QT groups were 28.3 ± 6.6 and 26.5 ± 8.4 years, respectively. HTs yielded clinically higher IKDC scores ( Conclusions: Compared with the use of the QT graft, the HT graft for ACL reconstruction may result in greater knee function and stability, while QT ACL reconstruction may be associated with increased levels of postsurgical activity in terms of return to sports and work. Future long-term RCTs are needed to confirm our findings. Level of Evidence: Level I.
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.