ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2026
Beighton Scoring System Use in Generalized Joint Hypermobility Studies Has Greater Scientific Rigor Than Joint-Specific or Arthroscopy Joint Hypermobility Studies.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the scientific rigor of Beighton Scoring System (BSS) use in generalized joint hypermobility (JH) studies (healthy subject injury risk/rate, physiological or kinesiological function determination) and joint-specific or arthroscopy JH studies; to identify the most commonly used BSS score thresholds; and to describe ways to improve BSS score use for improved surgical and clinical decision-making. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, the PubMed, EBSCO Host, and Web of Science databases were searched using "Beighton score" and "sports injury outcome" terms. Study purpose, publication year, female or male subject number, age and group type, measurement tools, BSS criteria, results, and conclusions data were extracted. Results: Twenty-eight generalized JH studies (43.8%, 28/64) involving 12,138 subjects (6512 females) and 36 joint-specific or arthroscopy JH studies (56.3%, 36/64) involving 7351 subjects (3441 females) were identified. Overall, most studies reported that BSS scores influenced most/all (54.7%, n = 35/64) or some (26.6%, 17/64) study outcomes and most were Evidence Level II (57.8%, n = 37/64) or III (35.9%, n = 23/64). Most generalized JH studies used a BSS score ≥4 (n = 13, 46.4%) or BSS ≥5 (n = 7, 25%) while most joint-specific or arthroscopy JH studies used a BSS score ≥4 (n = 17, 47.2%), a BSS score ≥5 (n = 9, 25%), or the full BSS score scale (n = 7, 19.4%). Joint-specific and arthroscopy JH studies were more recently published (2020.2 ± 3.5 vs 2014.2 ± 6.8, Conclusions: Generalized JH studies had more prospective research designs, had higher evidence levels, and more frequently reported separate subject age and sex details. Greater use of these characteristics in joint-specific or arthroscopy JH studies may strengthen surgical and clinical decision-making and patient outcome prediction validity. Level of Evidence: Level IV, narrative review of Level I to IV studies.
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.