MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039205670 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.89

Tibiofemoral Osteoarthritis After Surgical or Nonsurgical Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: A Systematic Review

2015· review· en· W2039205670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kyle Harris, Jeffrey B. Driban, Michael R. Sitler, Nicole M. Cattano, Easwaran Balasubramanian, Jennifer M. Hootman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnterior cruciate ligamentOsteoarthritisConfidence intervalSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if surgical or nonsurgical treatment of anterior cruciate ligament rupture affects the prevalence of posttraumatic tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA). DATA SOURCES: Studies published between 1983 and April 2012 were identified via EBSCOhost and OVID. Reference lists were then screened in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if (a) treatment outcomes focused on a direct comparison of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of anterior cruciate ligament rupture, (b) the prevalence of tibiofemoral OA was reported, and (c) they were written in English. Studies were excluded if (a) the included patients were treated with cast immobilization after surgery, (b) the mean follow-up was less than 10 years, or (c) the patients underwent anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent investigators reviewed the included articles using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Frequency of OA, surgical procedure, nonsurgical treatments, and participant characteristics were extracted and summarized. We calculated prevalence (%) and 95% confidence intervals for treatment groups for each individual study and overall. We developed 2 × 2 contingency tables to assess the association between treatment groups (exposed had surgery, referent was nonsurgical treatment) and the prevalence of OA. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four retrospective studies were identified (140 surgical patients, 240 nonsurgical patients). The mean Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was 5 (range = 4-6 [of 10] points). Average length of follow-up was 11.8 years (range = 10-14 years). The prevalence of OA for surgically treated patients ranged from 32.6% to 51.2% (overall = 41.4%, 95% confidence interval = 35.0%, 48.1%) and for nonsurgical patients ranged from 24.5% to 42.3% (overall = 30.9%, 95% confidence interval = 24.4%, 38.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although OA prevalence was higher in the surgical treatment group at a mean follow-up of 11.8 years, no definitive evidence supports surgical or nonsurgical treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury to prevent posttraumatic OA. Current studies have been limited by small sample sizes, low methodologic quality, and a lack of data regarding confounding factors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.010
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Athletic TrainingSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207