Hamstring tendon autograft better than bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft in ACL reconstruction - A cumulative meta-analysis and clinically relevant sensitivity analysis applied to a previously published analysis [2]

Acta Orthopaedica

Volumn 78, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 705-708

  Poolman, Rudolf W ^a   Farrokhyar, Forough ^a   Bhandari, Mohit ^a  

^a ONZE LIEVE VROUWE GASTHUIS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION; BONE PATELLAR TENDON BONE GRAFT; LETTER; META ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; HAMSTRING; JOINT STABILITY; KNEE INSTABILITY; KNEE PAIN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TENDON GRAFT; THERAPY EFFECT;

EID: 35648948418     PISSN: 17453674     EISSN: 17453682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17453670710014455     Document Type: Letter

References (15)

1. Biau D J, Tournoux C, Katsahian S, Schranz P J, Nizard R S. Bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts versus hamstring autografts for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis. Bmj 2006; 332 (7548): 995-1001.
2. Biau D J, Tournoux C, Katsahian S, Schranz P, Nizard R. ACL reconstruction: a meta-analysis of functional scores. Clin Orthop 2007; (458): 180-7.
3. Biau D J, Katsahian S, Kartus J, Harilainen A, Feller J, Sajovic M, Ejerhed L, Zaffagnini S, Röpke M, Nizard R. Bone-patellar tendo -bone versus hamstring tendon autografts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis on patient level data. Submitted 2007.
4. Bland J M, Altman D G. Statistics notes: Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. BMJ 1995; 310: 170.
5. Brookes S T, Whitley E, Peters T J, Mulheran P A, Egger M, Davey Smith G. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5 (33): 1-56.
6. Gail M, Simon R. Testing for qualitative interactions between treatment effects and patient subsets. Biometrics 1985; 41 (2): 361-72.
7. Hopayian K. The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews. BMJ 2001; 323: 681-4.
8. Kwakkel G, van Peppen R, Wagenaar R C, Wood Dauphinee S, Richards C, Ashburn A, Miller K, Lincoln N, Partridge C, Wellwood I, Langhorne P. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2004; 35 (11): 2529-39.
9. Lau J, Antman E M, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers T C. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1992; 327 (4): 248-54.
10. Lyman G H, Kuderer N M. The strengths and limitations of meta-analyses based on aggregate data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005; 5 (1): 14.
11. Messerli F. Metaanalysis. Are calcium antagonists safe? Lancet 1985: 7678.
12. Poolman R W, Abouali J A, Conter H J, Bhandari M. Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: why are they different? J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2007; 89 (7): 1542-52.
13. Poolman R W, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Hamstring tendon autograft better than bone patellartendon bone autograft in ACL reconstruction A cumulative meta-analysis and clinically relevant sensitivity analysis applied to a previously published analysis. Acta Orthop 2007; 78 (3): 350-4.
14. Prodromos C C, Joyce B T, Shi K, Keller B L. A meta-analysis of stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as a function of hamstring versus patellar tendon graft and fixation type. Arthroscopy 2005; 21 (10): 1202.
15. Stewart L A, Parmar M K. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet 1993; 341 (8842): 418-22.