Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40903017›Full record

SynthesisBone & joint open2025

A systematic review of outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials involving people with patellar dislocations.

Colin P Forde, Crispin Mortimer, Toby O Smith, Matthew L Costa, Jonathan A Cook, Elizabeth Tutton, Georgina Wistow, Paul Minty, David J Keene

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Bone & joint open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Medial quadriceps tendon-femoral ligament reconstruction for recurrent patellofemoral instability: a systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Colin P FordeOxford Trauma and Emergency Care, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Crispin MortimerPhysiotherapy Department, Tavistock Hospital, University Hospitals Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Toby O SmithWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Matthew L CostaOxford Trauma and Emergency Care, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jonathan A CookOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Elizabeth TuttonOxford Trauma and Emergency Care, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Georgina WistowPhysiotherapy Department, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Paul MintyTherapies Department, Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK.
David J KeeneOxford Trauma and Emergency Care, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: The primary aims were to determine what outcome domains, outcome measurement instruments, and outcome measurement timepoints are reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with patellar dislocations. The secondary aims were to determine what primary outcomes were used and how a recurrent patellar dislocation was defined when this was used as an outcome. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and trial registries (last search: January 2024) for RCTs evaluating treatments for people with a patellar dislocation irrespective of age or sex. We identified the unique outcomes in included studies and mapped these onto the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO ICF) framework to identify the measured domains. We synthesized results into tables, figures, and text. A critical appraisal of included studies was not required for this systematic review. Results: From the 70 included studies, we identified 141 unique outcomes. The most commonly used unique outcome was a recurrent ipsilateral patellar dislocation (used in 55 studies), but only 17/55 studies (31%) reported how this was defined (i.e. the criteria required for a recurrent ipsilateral patellar dislocation event to be recorded). Unique outcomes mapped onto 66 second-level domains of the WHO ICF framework, and 56% (593/1,052) in the 'activities and participation' domain. Included studies used 42 different patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), most commonly the Kujala Patellofemoral Score (71%, 50/70 studies), but 28 PROMs (60%) were used only once. In all, 31 different primary outcomes were identified from 47 included studies, with 14 primary outcomes (45%) used only once among included studies. The Kujala Patellofemoral Score was also the most common primary outcome (38%, 18/47 studies). Outcome measurement timepoints varied, but the most common timeframe for primary outcome measurement was > one to three years (46%, 16/35 studies that provided data). Conclusion: The variability in the outcome domains, PROMs, and primary outcomes measured in RCTs evaluating patellar dislocation treatments highlights that a core outcome set is needed. This process is underway and is being informed by this systematic review's findings.

Identifiers

PMID40903017
PMCPMC12408121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.