Question · asked by 1 review
Bioabsorbable vs metallic interference screws: Functional ability
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Bioabsorbable vs metallic interference screws Function: Lysholm knee score (0 to 100; higher scores = better function) · Adults undergoing surgical reconstruction of a ruptured ACL1 Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament… (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 168 participants | Very low |
Bioabsorbable vs metallic interference screws Function: Lysholm knee score (0 to 100; higher scores = better function) · Adults undergoing surgical reconstruction of a ruptured ACL1 Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament… (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 113 participants | Very low |
Bioabsorbable vs metallic interference screws Function: Lysholm knee score (0 to 100; higher scores = better function) · Adults undergoing surgical reconstruction of a ruptured ACL1 Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament… (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 71 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.