ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
Analysis of
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical trials (CTs) are critical for evaluating treatment effectiveness, with abstracts serving as the primary source of the study that is read. Purpose: This study explored selective reporting of significant Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase searches were conducted using related terms and were filtered for RCTs and CTs. There were 2 reviewers who analyzed the abstract and main text independently and extracted study characteristics and every Results: The initial search yielded 156 articles, with 61 meeting the inclusion criteria. Our analysis showed a significant discrepancy in the distribution of Conclusion: Our study highlights a significant risk of reporting bias in RCTs and CTs of MSCs for the treatment of knee OA. With growing interest in the use of MSCs, it remains crucial for busy clinicians to recognize the possibility of selective reporting bias in abstracts, as this could potentially influence clinical decision making.
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.