ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Digital hand-held arthrometry is a reliable and accurate adjunct for diagnosing acute anterior cruciate ligament tears.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation and reliability of a novel portable automated knee arthrometer: a cadaveric study bridging the skin-to-bone gap and suggesting medial pivotal rotation as a superior marker for ACL deficiency.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Don't take their word for it: Investigating the diagnostic accuracy of history elements for anterior cruciate ligament tears.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Digital hand-held arthrometry is a reliable and accurate adjunct for diagnosing acute anterior cruciate ligament tears.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the intrarater reliability and predictive validity of Lachmeter® measurements for diagnosing acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, and to propose diagnostic thresholds. Methods: Lachmeter® measurements were recorded during the stabilised Lachman test for consecutive participants presenting to an acute knee injury clinic within 21-days of injury. Intrarater reliability for individual limb and side-to-side (STS) difference (injured limb minus uninjured limb) measurements was investigated using a cross-sectional, repeated-measures design and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The predictive validity of STS difference and injured limb measurements was investigated using a prospective cohort design; sensitivity, specificity, negative (LR-) and positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were calculated using magnetic resonance imaging as the reference standard. Results: Intrarater reliability was excellent for individual limb and STS difference measurements in 102 participants. Of the 63 participants included in the validity analysis, 31 had a normal ACL and 32 had an ACL tear. LR- point estimates for STS differences <1.4 mm (0.07 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-0.29]) or injured limb measurements <7.5 mm (0.09 [95% CI: 0.02-0.34] produced 'large' shifts in the probability of ruling out an ACL tear. LR+ point estimates for STS differences ≥3.8 mm (10.67 [95% CI: 2.68-42.51]) or injured limb measurements ≥11.8 mm (10.67 [95% CI: 1.42-80.26]) produced 'large' shifts in the probability of ruling in a full-thickness ACL tear. Conclusion: In participants presenting within 21-days of knee injury, intrarater reliability was excellent for Lachmeter® measurements recorded during the stabilised Lachman test. Based on predictive validity estimates, Lachmeter® measurements can be used to differentiate normal from torn ACLs in acute presentations, but not partial from full-thickness ACL tears. Diagnostic thresholds are proposed based on STS difference and injured limb measurements, and with consideration of the Lachman end point.
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.