ArticleBone & joint open2025
Allografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a scoping review of the literature highlighting reporting standards.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2025
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To conduct a scoping review into the use of allograft in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, and to ascertain the variability in reporting outcomes in the literature. Methods: The study was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analayses (PRISMA), and also used Arksey and O'Malley's established five-stage process for scoping reviews in order to map the literature for allograft use in primary ACL reconstruction. Following screening to identify eligible studies, data were extracted and mapped to provide a descriptive and thematic analysis. Results: A total of 421 studies were identified from the initial search, with 77 studies eligible for final scoping review published from January 1993 to December 2024. The majority of studies were published from the USA and China (56/77, 72.3%). Nine studies (9/77, 11.7%) were level1 evidence. Key variables such as graft diameter (27/77, 33.8%), graft processing (27/77, 35.1%), and cost of graft (3/77, 3.9%) were significantly under-reported. For clinical outcomes, the Lachman score (45/77, 57.1%), pivot shift grade (45/77, 58.4%), and graft re-rupture rate (42/77, 54.5%) were highest reported. For functional outcomes, two predominant scores were recorded, the International Knee Documentation Committee score (52/77, 67.5%) and the Tegner-Lysholm knee score (48/77, 62.3%). A total of 30 functional outcomes were recorded, spanning all studies. Conclusion: This scoping review identified 77 studies which analyzed allografts in primary ACL reconstruction. There is great variability in the reporting standards, with significant under-reporting of important variables. Further research is required to develop standardized reporting criteria in order to accurately reflect the outcomes of allografts in primary ACL reconstruction.
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.