ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Arthroscopic vs. open Broström-Gould procedure for chronic lateral ankle instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic lateral ankle instability (CLAI) is a common complication of ankle sprains, and the Broström-Gould procedure is the preferred option. This study aimed to compare the short-term (with a mean follow-up period of 24 months) clinical efficacy and postoperative recovery rate between arthroscopic and open Broström-Gould surgery in patients with CLAI. Methods: The present study followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science were searched to 31 December 2025.Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager (version5.3) for the following outcomes: surgery time, AOFAS scores, K-P scores, VAS scores, Tegner activity scores, Anterior drawer, Talar tilt, Return to sports, Total complication rates, Bias risk evaluation was performed applying the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: 14 studies (875 patients) met criteria, with 421 allocated to open and 454 to arthroscopic groups.There were no statistically significant differences in surgical time [mean difference [MD] = -5.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.68 to 3.01; Conclusions: Both techniques show broadly comparable outcomes, with possible earlier return to sport or less pain after arthroscopy, although the certainty of this finding is limited. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review.This protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO database CRD420261298649.
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.