ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Needle arthroscopy as an emerging office-based tool: Promising diagnostic value but limited evidence for therapeutic equivalence-A systematic review and frequentist 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Needle (Nano) arthroscopy is an emerging minimally invasive technique primarily used for diagnostic assessment and selected therapeutic procedures that may facilitate office-based joint evaluation. However, comparative evidence regarding functional outcomes, procedural performance and safety remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared needle arthroscopy with conventional arthroscopy regarding functional outcomes, diagnostic performance and complication rates. Methods: Comparative studies of needle arthroscopy versus conventional arthroscopy were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Functional outcomes, procedural success, complications and diagnostic performance were quantitatively synthesized. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using Results: Nine studies including 503 patients were analysed. Needle arthroscopy and conventional arthroscopy demonstrated comparable procedure completion (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.17-5.93) and diagnostic success (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.10-10.07). Complication rates were low and similar between groups (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.20-5.06), with no differences in infection or reoperation. Needle arthroscopy showed improved functional outcomes at 0.5 months (KOOS4 [KOOS composite score (mean of four subscales)]: MD +15.25, 95% CI 7.82-22.67) and maintained a significant advantage at 1.5 months (MD +7.25, 95% CI 0.27-14.22). Exploratory diagnostic analyses revealed no significant differences in sensitivity or specificity. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Conclusion: Needle arthroscopy provides comparable diagnostic and procedural performance to conventional arthroscopy and offers an early functional advantage. However, while current evidence is insufficient to replace conventional arthroscopy as the reference standard, needle arthroscopy may represent a valuable adjunct or emerging alternative in selected clinical settings. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review and meta-analysis of predominantly retrospective cohort studies.
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.