SynthesisActa orthopaedica2025
Uncertainty and risk of misleading conclusions: an umbrella review of the quality of the evidence for ankle arthroscopy.
Synthesis in Acta orthopaedica, 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.
- Lower-limb biomechanical alterations across movement tasks in individuals with chronic ankle instability: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Mechanobiology in medicine · 2026Review
- Letter to the Editor: Uncertainty and risk of misleading conclusions: an umbrella review of the quality of the evidence for ankle arthroscopy.Acta orthopaedica · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeAnkle arthroscopy is being increasingly utilized, but its potential benefits and harms remain unclear. This umbrella review aimed to assess the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing ankle arthroscopy with equivalent open procedures or nonoperative options.
methodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL was conducted on March 22, 2025. 2 reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Systematic reviews assessing ankle arthroscopy versus any surgery or nonoperative treatment were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using AMSTAR 2 criteria, along with an evaluation of whether the GRADE tool was appropriately applied.
resultsThe literature search identified 430 studies, of which 29 systematic reviews were included after the screening process. These reviews covered various conditions, including lateral ankle instability, osteoarthritis, fractures, and osteochondral defects. None of the systematic reviews included RCTs comparing arthroscopic procedures with nonoperative treatment. A methodological assessment using AMSTAR 2 criteria identified multiple critical flaws across all reviews, leading to an overall confidence rating of "critically low" for each. 1 study adequately applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
conclusionThe efficacy of ankle arthroscopic procedures remains based solely on observational evidence. Given the critically low methodological quality of existing reviews, conclusions suggesting benefits of ankle arthroscopy, particularly over open procedures, are unreliable and insufficient to inform clinical recommendations. RCTs comparing ankle arthroscopy with nonoperative treatments or sham surgery are urgently needed.
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.