ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
Reporting Bias Is Highly Prevalent in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Related to Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic reviews on tranexamic acid in shoulder arthroplasty frequently exhibit reporting bias.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- A Critical Appraisal of Reporting Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Addressing Knee Chondral Defects.Cartilage · 2025Article
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
Purpose: To analyze reporting bias in the form of spin present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR). Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, systematic reviews were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase using the search "medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction" or "MPFLR" AND "systematic review" OR "meta-analysis." Abstracts were assessed for 15 common spin types. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Characteristics such as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses adherence, publication year, and level of evidence were analyzed. Associations between these factors and spin presence or type were determined using statistical tests, including Results: The initial database search identified 1,044 studies, of which a total of 57 studies were included. Spin was present in the abstract in 51 of 57 studies (89.5%). Each type of spin was observed in at least 1 study's abstract with the exceptions of spin types 1, 7, 13, and 15. The 3 most common types were type 5 (48/57, 84.2%), followed by type 3 (32/57, 56.1%) and type 9 (30/57, 52.6%). Of the included studies, 91.2% received a critically low AMSTAR 2 confidence rating, and only 5.3% reported a conflict of interest. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between the numerical AMSTAR 2 rating and the presence of spin ( Conclusions: Most systematic reviews on MPFLR received critically low AMSTAR 2 ratings, reflecting the poor quality of evidence in this area. Nearly 90% of abstracts exhibited at least 1 type of spin, with spin types 3, 5, and 9 being the most common, suggesting a tendency to overstate the efficacy of MPFLR for patellar instability. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.
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.