ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Effects of accelerated rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction on clinical and functional outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating clinical meaningfulness.
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: Pain, joint laxity, deficits in functional performance and proprioception are common after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The role of accelerated rehabilitation (AR) in addressing these outcomes remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of AR on laxity, functional performance, proprioception and pain in individuals post-ACLR. Method: Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase) were searched until March 2026. Eligible interventional studies comparing AR with standard exercise in individuals post-ACLR were included. Data extraction followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro and Newcastle-Ottawa scales. Knee pain and laxity were defined as the primary outcome, with functional performance and proprioception evaluated as secondary outcomes. Random-effects models calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Ten studies ( Conclusion: AR was associated with statistically detectable changes in knee laxity, functional outcomes and knee proprioception; however, these effects had limited clinical relevance and did not extend to pain reduction. Therefore, the clinical value of AR in optimizing post-ACLR recovery remains uncertain. Level of Evidence: Level I.
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.