ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
A scoping review and guide for in vitro healthy human knee joint laxity.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
Introduction: Knee laxity is a well-studied concept with a vast repository of information in the literature. However, an often-overlooked challenge arises from the diverse methodological heterogeneity, making inter-study comparisons and overall knowledge of knee laxity confounded. Therefore, this review aimed to comprehensively summarise Materials and Methods: A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted, spanning all publications up to 30 October 2024. Here, studies providing quantitative data on intact, primary or secondary, knee joint laxity (i.e., anterior-posterior, internal-external and varus-valgus) were synthesised together with their methodological procedures. Data were grouped based on loading intervals (i.e., 88-100 N, 130-134 N, 5 Nm and 10 Nm) and knee flexion angles (i.e., 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90°, and 120°), based on the most available data. Results: A total of 161 studies comprising 1741 intact knee specimens were included. Anterior-posterior laxity was the most frequently reported, followed by internal-external and varus-valgus directions. Despite comparable experimental setups, substantial variability was observed in grouped data laxity values due to differences in coordinate system definition and kinematic constraints. In fact, specimen preparation, demographics and intactness were frequently incomplete or missing, limiting confidence in the validity of reported intact knee laxity measurements. Discussion and Conclusions: Due to limited field coherence and methodological transparency, guidelines are needed for laxity reporting in the future. Thus, the synthesised information from all the included articles was used to formulate foundational guidelines for standardised testing and reporting of knee laxity in the future. These guidelines cover specimen reporting, specimen knee intactness check, laxity reporting, experimental testing and measuring conditions to enable result comparisons and future meta-analysis.
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.