ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Magnetic resonance imaging-based identification of the knee anterolateral ligament: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of experimental 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The anterolateral ligament (ALL) is recognised as a stabiliser against internal tibial rotation and as a supporting structure for the anterior cruciate ligament; however, its MRI appearance is inconsistently reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesise the current literature to provide evidence regarding the visualisation, morphometry and injury prevalence of the ALL on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: A systematic review of PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science was conducted in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Eligible studies reported the MRI visualisation and/or anatomical characteristics of the ALL. Pooled prevalence and means were calculated using random-effects models. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to identify factors affecting visualisation. Results: Twenty-six studies comprising 2706 knees were included. The pooled prevalence of ALL visualisation was 92.96% (95% CI: 87.81-96.91). Complete visualisation of the entire ligamentous course was achieved in 56.03% (95% CI: 37.39-73.86), while partial visualisation was 38.34% (95% CI: 27.90-49.32). Visibility was highest for the tibial part (80.91%) and lowest for the meniscal part (66.83%). Nationality ( Conclusion: Pooled evidence suggests a high reported prevalence of ALL visualisation on MRI. However, considerable heterogeneity indicates that reproducibility across different protocols remains uncertain. While technical factors such as knee flexion and multiplanar assessment appear to enhance ALL identification, standardised radiological criteria are necessary to definitively distinguish the ALL from the adjacent joint capsule. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.