ReviewActa ortopedica brasileira2025
HAS THE AHLBÄCK CLASSIFICATION BEEN ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AND CITED?
Review in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The classification of knee osteoarthritis allows assessment of disease severity and may be useful in guiding treatment decisions. One of the most widely used systems for this purpose is the Ahlbäck classification. This study aimed to compare the original description of the Ahlbäck classification with how it has been reported and cited by other authors in subsequent publications. We conducted a search in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles containing exclusively the terms "knee", "osteoarthritis", "osteoarthrosis", and "Ahlbäck classification". After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 64 articles remained. These articles were analyzed in two aspects: the description of the Ahlbäck classification (categorized as correct, partially correct, or incorrect) and the accuracy of the reference citation (correctly or incorrectly cited). Only 10 articles (15.6%) correctly described the Ahlbäck classification and cited the original source properly. In contrast, 37 publications (58.4%) contained errors both in the description of the classification and the citation. Conversely, 37 publications (58.4%) contained errors both in the description of the classification and in the bibliographic reference. The proportion of articles that accurately described and cited the Ahlbäck classification was markedly low, comprising only 15.6% of those included in this systematic review.
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.