SynthesisBone & joint open2026
Medium-term functional outcomes comparing soft-tissue autografts with allografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Bone & joint open, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a widely performed procedure, yet the clinical and functional outcomes of soft-tissue autografts compared with allografts remain unclear. While previous studies have focused on surgical techniques and failure rates, few have systematically analyzed functional outcomes following ACLR. This study aimed to assess medium-term functional patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as the primary outcome and clinical outcomes as the secondary outcome following ACLR. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and was pre-registered on the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). A comprehensive search of databases, including PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase, was conducted up to June 2024. Eligible studies included skeletally mature patients undergoing primary ACLR, with reported clinical and functional outcomes at minimum 24 months. Data were analyzed using random-effects models to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs). Results: Of 5,292 studies screened, 12 were included, encompassing 1,038 patients. Of the functional scores, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) outcomes (n = 930; SMD = 0.27; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.39; p < 0.001) and Tegner activity scores (n = 646; SMD = 0.18; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.34; p = 0.021) significantly favoured autografts, with Lysholm scores (n = 643; SMD = 0.14; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.29; p = 0.078) showing no significant differences between graft types. For clinical outcomes, Lachmann's grades significantly favoured allografts (n = 346; SMD = -0.56; 95% CI -1.09 to -0.03; p = 0.037). Revision rates and graft re-tear rates did not differ significantly between graft types. Conclusion: The study found that autografts and allografts yield variable functional and clinical outcomes in ACLR at minimum 24-month follow-up, with autografts showing modest yet statistically significant advantage in IKDC and Tegner activity scores, but not in Lysholm functional score at and beyond 24 months. However, Lachmann's scores suggested better stability with allografts.
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.