SynthesisJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2026
Clinical relevance of patient-reported outcome measures in the surgical management of focal chondral defects of the knee: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate clinical outcome following surgical management of focal chondral defects in the knee, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used. To give these measures meaning, parameters such as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS), minimally detectable change (MDC), clinically important difference (CID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) have been introduced. This systematic review investigated the MCID, SCB, CID, PASS and MDC of the most commonly used PROMs for assessing patients following surgical repair of focal chondral defects of the knee.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. All clinical studies investigating tools to assess the clinical relevance of PROMs in the surgical repair of focal chondral defects of the knee were reviewed. In April 2025, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science and Embase. The PROMs of interest included: the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and its related subscales activities of daily living (ADL), pain, quality of life (QoL), sports and recreational activities, and symptoms, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, the Tegner Lysholm knee scoring scale, the Short Form-12 (SF-12) and its related mental and physical component subscales, the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and the Cincinnati Knee Rating System (CKRS). The Risk of Bias in Nonrandomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) indicated a low to moderate risk of bias.
resultsThe systematic literature search yielded 524 articles. Only data from four studies (involving 421 patients) were included. All of these were non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) employing a retrospective study design. Most reported thresholds for a significant change across the questionnaires ranged from 20 to 30 points on a 100-point scale, whereas PASS values ranged from 62 points in the IKDC to 87 points in the KOOS ADL.
conclusionsDespite a comprehensive search strategy, only four studies met the inclusion criteria, underscoring that the parameters analysed remain overlooked in the scientific literature. Reported results for MCID, CID and MDC following cartilage repair are relatively consistent in magnitude, ranging from 10 to 20. Differences reported in the literature that fall below this range should be regarded as no improvement. For SCB and PASS, values were even higher, spanning from 20 to 30 and from 62 to 87 points in IKDC and KOOS ADL, respectively. Given the high standard of modern medical care, further development and validation of condition-specific PROMs should be considered to facilitate future clinical evaluations using PROMs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, 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.