The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts versus hamstring autografts for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts with hamstring autografts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. DATA SOURCES: Medline, WebSPIRS, Science Citation Index, Current Contents databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Review methods All randomised controlled trials reporting one or more outcome related to stability (instrumented measurement of knee laxity, Lachman test, or pivot shift test) and morbidity (anterior knee pain, kneeling test, loss of extension, or graft failure). Study quality was assessed by using a 5 point scale. Random effect models were used to pool the data. Heterogeneity in the effect of treatment was tested on the basis of study quality, randomisation status, and number of tendon strands used. RESULTS: 24 trials of 18 cohorts (1512 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was poor for nine studies and fair for nine studies. The weighted mean difference of the instrumented measurement of knee laxity was 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.71; P = 0.04). Relative risk of a positive Lachman test was 1.22 (1.01 to 1.47; P = 0.04), of anterior knee pain 0.57 (0.44 to 0.74; P < 0.0001), of a positive kneeling test 0.26 (0.14 to 0.48; P < 0.0001), and of loss of extension 0.52 (0.34 to 0.80; P = 0.003). Other results were not significant. CONCLUSION: Morbidity was lower for hamstring autografts than for patellar tendon autografts. Evidence that patellar tendon autografts offer better stability was weak. The poor quality of the studies calls into question the robustness of the analyses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The strengths and limitations of meta-analyses based on aggregate data
Lyman, G. H., & Kuderer, N. M. (2005) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-14 · Cited by 250
Cited by
The Long-term Consequence of Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Meniscus Injuries: Osteoarthritis
Lohmander, L. S., Englund, P. M., Dahl, L. L., & Roos, E. M. (2007) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546507307396 · Cited by 2,344
Noailles, T., Boisrenoult, P., Sanchez, M., Beaufils, P., & Pujol, N. (2017) · Arthroscopy · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.03.019 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Biau, D. J., Tournoux, C., Katsahian, S., Schranz, P. J., & Nizard, R. S.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-04-07
- Volume
- 332
- Issue
- 7548
- Pages
- 995-1001
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2111223582
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts versus hamstring autografts for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38784.384109.2f
- The paper
- Biau, D. J., Tournoux, C., Katsahian, S., Schranz, P. J., & Nizard, R. S. (2006). Bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts versus hamstring autografts for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38784.384109.2f
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.