SynthesisHip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy2025
Bone marrow aspirate concentrate adjunct for acetabular labral tear repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to determine the effect of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) on long-term patient outcomes when used as an adjuvant to acetabular repair of the labrum.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were completed following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Included in the analysis were controlled studies which assessed functional outcomes via the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) 12 or 24 months after acetabular repair with BMAC adjunct. 4 studies totaling 315 participants were analysed.
resultsPooled effect sizes for iHOT-33 scores were not significantly different between control and treatment groups at 12 (
conclusionsNon-significant trends in favour of BMAC augmentation were found in this study. However, the trends reported are promising and warrant further investigation with further randomised controlled trials.
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.