ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
Enhancing research methods: The role of systematic and scoping reviews in orthopaedics, sports medicine and rehabilitation.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Treatment Options for Patients With Iliopsoas Impingement Syndrome After Total Hip Arthroplasty.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Return to performance criteria in soccer after musculoskeletal injury: A scoping review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Rehabilitation guidelines after autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction need more graft-specific exercise recommendations-A scoping review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Sport-specific differences in ACL injury, treatment and return to sports: Football.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efforts to improve research standards in orthopaedics, sports medicine, physical therapy, and rehabilitation are ongoing. Rrehabilitation andomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are widely regarded as the gold standard for the collection of primary data. Similarly, systematic reviews, due to their methodological rigor, have become the gold standard for evidence synthesis in medicine. However, while narrative reviews often lack scientific rigor and systematic reviews are not suited to addressing all research questions, other robust review formats are necessary. When the outcomes of interest are unknown or difficult to define in advance, scoping or mapping reviews are more appropriate, as they can address a broader range of questions within the field. Consequently, it is essential to establish rigorous methods for conducting scoping reviews across medical disciplines.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.