ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2026
Which PROM Should Be Used to Address the Right Domain of Interest After ACL-R: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential for evaluating symptoms, function, psychological readiness, and quality of life after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R). Despite their broad use, PROMs differ considerably in what they measure and how well they perform. This comprehensive review summarizes evidence for the most commonly used PROMs in ACL-R and provides guidance on selecting instruments that best match a given domain of interest. Methods: A targeted PubMed search (January 2000-October 2025), complemented by manual screening of references, identified studies reporting psychometric properties of ACL-related PROMs. Extracted data included internal consistency, test-retest reliability, SEM/MDC, MCID, responsiveness, ceiling/floor effects, patient burden, cross-cultural validation, and conceptual domains. Results: PROMs varied widely in scope and measurement quality. ACL-QOL consistently demonstrated excellent reliability and is well suited for ACL-specific quality-of-life assessments. ACL-RSI is the most robust tool for psychological readiness to return to sport. IKDC and KOOS showed strong reliability for general knee symptoms and function, with KOOS offering broader subscale coverage. KOS-ADLS performed well for activities of daily living, while VAS provided a reliable single-domain pain measurement. WOMAC showed strong psychometrics in osteoarthritis but limited relevance in younger athletic populations. Brief tools such as SANE, EQ-5D, and the Tegner scale offer rapid global assessment but lack depth. Several instruments showed ceiling or floor effects depending on recovery stage and activity level. Conclusion: No single PROM captures all dimensions relevant after ACL-R. Domain-driven selection-such as ACL-QOL for QoL, ACL-RSI for psychological factors, IKDC/KOOS for function, or VAS for pain-ensures meaningful assessment. Considering measurement precision (SEM/MDC/MCID) and adhering to COSMIN principles can improve the comparability and clinical utility of ACL outcomes research.
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.