SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Comparative effectiveness of resistance training modalities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: After anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), resistance training is essential, yet the comparative effectiveness of specific approaches remains uncertain. The objective was to compare the effectiveness of commonly used resistance training modalities after ACLR on quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, knee function, and health-related quality of life (QoL). Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched to 30 September 2025 for randomized controlled trials in adults or adolescents after primary ACLR. Eligible studies compared modality-dominant resistance-based rehabilitation with standard multimodal postoperative rehabilitation or other resistance approaches and reported quadriceps strength, quadriceps mass, knee function, or QoL. The standard multimodal rehabilitation comparator was interpreted as usual rehabilitation practice rather than absence of exercise or resistance training. A random-effects network meta-analysis estimated standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals and ranked treatments using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: Twenty-two trials (n = 797) were included. For quadriceps strength, blood flow restriction training (BFRT) ranked first (SUCRA 81.7) and exceeded standard multimodal rehabilitation (CON) (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.73). For quadriceps mass, BFRT ranked first (SUCRA 79.1) and exceeded CON (SMD 0.82; 95% CI 0.11 to 1.53). For knee function, isokinetic training (IKT) had the highest-ranking probability (SUCRA 87.7), but pairwise differences among active modalities were not statistically significant, indicating no clear evidence of clinical superiority. For QoL, eccentric training (ET) ranked first (SUCRA 87.4) and improved QoL versus CON (SMD 1.31; 95% CI 0.01 to 2.63). Conclusion: Post-ACLR resistance prescription should be outcome-oriented. BFRT may be considered when the primary target is recovery of quadriceps strength and mass, particularly compared with usual standard multimodal rehabilitation. IKT may be considered when aiming to improve knee function, but current evidence does not confirm its superiority over other active modalities. ET may be considered when improving QoL is a major rehabilitation goal, although this finding should be interpreted cautiously given the limited certainty of evidence. These findings should be understood as comparisons between modality-dominant programs and standard multimodal rehabilitation, and may help inform individualized rehabilitation planning following ACLR. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251182456.
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.