ArticleEuropean journal of translational myology2026
Clinical efficacy of ramp lesion treatment: a systematic review and meta analysis study.
Article in European journal of translational myology, 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
Ramp lesions, tears involving the peripheral attachment of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus, significantly impact knee stability and function, particularly in association with anterior cruciate ligament injuries. However, evidence regarding optimal treatment strategies remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of various treatment modalities for ramp lesions. A comprehensive systematic search was conducted across major electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, up to June 2025. Studies were included based on predefined eligibility criteria. Data extraction was performed and meta-analytic synthesis was conducted using random-effects models. A total of 17 studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled mean difference demonstrated significant improvements in both IKDC (MD=28.5 points; 95% CI: 27.9-29.2) and Lysholm scores (MD=28.5 points; 95% CI: 27.9-29.2). Subgroup analyses revealed notable effectiveness for AIR compared to CM and PM, with statistically significant subgroup differences (p<0.05). The overall treatment success rate was 87% (95% CI: 83-92%). Across techniques, patient-reported outcomes improved markedly (IKDC fixed-effect pooled Mean Difference [MD] 28.8 points, 95% CI 28.2-29.4; random-effects overall effect significant; I²=98%). In anterior vs posterior all-inside subgroups, IKDC showed no robust between-approach difference on the random-effects test (χ²=0.51, p=.48), with a small fixed-effect difference (χ²=4.34, p=.04). Lysholm scores also improved substantially (fixed-effect pooled MD 28.0 points, 95% CI 27.3-28.7), and the between-approach difference was significant, favoring the posterior subgroup on the fixed-effect model. The pooled clinical success proportion was 90% without a significant difference between approaches (p=.10). The findings indicate that surgical interventions, particularly All-inside repair has effectively improved knee function and patient-reported outcomes following ramp lesions compared to conservative management and partial meniscectomy. However, no.
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.