Question · asked by 1 review

Posterior cruciate ligament retention vs sacrifice (using the same arthroplasty design): Health related quality of life measures and functional measures with validated instruments (WOMAC, range 0‐100, higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness and functional limitations)

Population
Patients receiving total knee arthroplasty with or without resection of the posterior cruciate ligament for the treatment of osteoarthritis
Intervention
Posterior cruciate ligament retention
Comparison
sacrifice (using the same arthroplasty design)
Outcome
Health related quality of life measures and functional measures with validated instruments (WOMAC, range 0‐100, higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness and functional limitations)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Posterior cruciate ligament retention vs sacrifice (using the same arthroplasty design)
Health related quality of life measures and functional measures with validated instruments (WOMAC, range 0‐100, higher scores indicate worse pain, stiffness and functional limitations) · Patients receiving total knee arthroplasty with or without resection of the posterior cruciate ligament for the…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Retention versus sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty for treating… (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extractedNot reportedNo studies found

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Retention versus sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty for treating osteoarthritis
2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedNot extractedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.