ReviewJB & JS open access
Suture Tape Augmentation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective and Matched Retrospective Studies.
Review in JB & JS open access. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous biomechanical studies have shown that suture tape augmentation (STA) in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can improve the graft which can translate to reduced failure rate in a clinical setting. Previous meta-analysis did not show benefits to STA in patients undergoing ACLR. However, the included studies were retrospective and are subject to heterogeneity which can result in confounding bias. By including only prospective and matched retrospective studies, this meta-analysis will assess the benefits of STA in patients undergoing ACLR. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were accessed and explored until November 2025. The extracted data consisted of the risk arthrofibrosis, graft failure, return to sports (RTS), time to RTS, and postoperative functional outcomes (The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] subscales and The International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] scale). Results: Six studies met the final inclusion criteria including 414 patients in the STA group with age ranging from 19 to 36 years and 450 patients in the control group with age ranging from 20 to 39 years. There was no difference between the 2 groups in arthrofibrosis, graft failure, RTS, and time to RTS. In addition, there were no differences in postoperative KOOS pain, symptoms, activities of daily living, sports, and quality of life subscales as well as IKDC. Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis revealed that the systematic use of STA did not provide additional clinical benefits in patients older than 18 years undergoing ACLR.
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.