SynthesisAnnals of medicine2025
Operative versus nonoperative management of acute Achilles tendon rupture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes from randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the differences in re-rupture rates, complications, and functional assessments of Achilles tendon ruptures (ATRs) treated operatively or nonoperatively to guide clinical treatment choices.
methodsA literature search was performed in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases up to March 1, 2025, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with ATR receiving operative and nonoperative therapies. Primary outcomes included re-rupture rates, complications, and functional assessment. Meta-analysis of the extracted data was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 17.0.
resultsA total of 14 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 1,628 participants. The meta-analysis results revealed a considerably lower re-rupture rate in both the minimally invasive (MI) group (risk ratio [RR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11 to 0.74) and the open group (RR, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.50). For complications, subgroup analysis showed no significant difference between the MI and nonoperative groups (RR, 2.40; 95% CI: 0.52 to 10.98), whereas the open group had a higher complication rate (RR, 3.03; 95% CI: 1.75 to 5.26) than nonoperative groups. There was no significant difference in the functional assessment between operative and nonoperative groups. Regarding return to work, the MI group returned to work earlier compared to the nonoperative group.
conclusionOpen operative treatment significantly reduces the rate of re-rupture compared to nonoperative treatment but is accompanied by a higher risk of complications. MI treatment offers both of these advantages, along with superiority in return to work.
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.