ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of osteochondral restoration, cell-based regeneration and cell-free implants for knee chondral defects: a systematic review.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Chondral defects of the knee can impair function, reduce quality of life and accelerate progression to osteoarthritis. Treatment aims to delay further cartilage damage and reduce the risk of early-onset osteoarthritis and knee replacement. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness and safety of chondral defect repair procedures on the knee. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: PubMed and Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Interventions were matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI), osteochondral autologous transplantation (OATS) and cell-free implants. Comparators included microfracture (MF). Eligible study designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs). Eligible outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinical response, treatment failure, reoperation and harms. Risk-of-bias assessments (RoB) on all included studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) for the RCTs and Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool for the NRSIs. Results: 13 studies reported effectiveness and 8 studies reported harms. MACI was more effective than MF, measured by PROs and response to treatment ( Conclusion: MACI and OATS showed greater or comparable effectiveness compared with MF. Harms were comparable between procedures, though reporting was sparse. Rigorous study design, standardised effectiveness outcomes and consistent reporting of harms would strengthen the evidence base. These findings can inform clinical decision-making and identify future research needs.
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.