ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2026
Assessment of the GNRB Arthrometer: High Inter-Rater Reliability Alone Does Not Support Replacement of the KT1000 in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Patients.
Article 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of the GNRB Arthrometer: High Inter-Rater Reliability Alone Does Not Support Replacement of the KT1000 in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Patients.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the inter-rater reliability and sensitivity of the GNRB arthrometer compared with the KT1000 and clinical examination with the Lachman test for patients with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Methods: Patients with ACL injury were examined preoperatively and postoperatively by 2 examiners. One examiner also performed a clinical examination and an examination with the KT1000. Side-to-side difference of ≥3 mm was classified as an ACL injury for both the GNRB and the KT1000. The interclass correlation was used to evaluate inter-reliability, and a paired t-test was used to identify differences between examiners. The sensitivity was calculated preoperatively. Results: A total of 20 patients underwent preoperative assessment with the GNRB, whereas 17 were available postoperatively. The GNRB diagnosed 12/20 and 13/20 for the 2 examiners, respectively, as having ACL injuries preoperatively, whereas the KT1000 diagnosed 19/20. Postoperatively, 5/17 and 4/17, respectively, had a side-to-side difference of ≥3 mm with the GNRB versus 7/17 for the KT1000, hence indicating an ACL injury or insufficient reconstruction. Clinical examination concluded that 15/17 had a manual Lachman of ≤+1. The interclass correlations between examiners were 0.80 for the involved side preoperatively and 0.84 postoperatively, considered moderate to good. Sensitivity for the GNRB was 60% and 65% for examiners 1 and 2, respectively. For the KT1000, it was 95%. Conclusions: In this study, the GNRB had a high inter-rater reliability, even with limited experience with the device. However, it was inferior to the KT1000 in correctly identifying ACL deficiency preoperatively in patients with ACL injury. Level of Evidence: Level III, prospective comparative study.
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.