↓ Skip to main content

Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Versus Physical Therapy for Degenerative Meniscus Lesions: How Robust Is the Current Evidence? A Critical Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
44 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Versus Physical Therapy for Degenerative Meniscus Lesions: How Robust Is the Current Evidence? A Critical Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis
Published in
Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.04.018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erik Hohmann, Vaida Glatt, Kevin Tetsworth, Mark Cote

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate study quality and risk of bias for randomized trials comparing partial meniscectomy with physical therapy in middle-aged patients with degenerative meniscus tears. A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed from 1990 through 2017. The inclusion criteria were at least 1 validated outcome score, and middle-aged patients (40 years and older) with a degenerative meniscus tear. Studies with a sham arm, and acute and concomitant injuries were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The quality of studies was assessed with the Cochrane GRADE tool and quality assessment tool (Effective Public Health Practice Project). Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger's test. The I2 statistics was calculated a measure of statistical heterogeneity. Six studies were included, and all were assessed as having a high risk of bias. There was no publication bias (P = .23). All studies were downgraded (low, n = 5; very low, n = 1). The Effective Public Health Practice Project assessed 1 study as strong, 2 as moderate, and 3 as weak. The overall results demonstrated moderate to low quality of the included studies. The I2 statistic was 96.2%, demonstrating substantial heterogeneity between studies. The results of this systematic review strongly suggest that there is currently no compelling evidence to support arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy. The studies evaluated here exhibited a high risk of bias, and the weak to moderate quality of the available studies, the small sample sizes, and the diverse study characteristics do not allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. Therefore, the validity of the results and conclusions of prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses must be viewed with extreme caution. The quality of the available published literature is not robust enough at this time to support claims of superiority for either alternative, and both arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or physical therapy could be considered reasonable treatment options for this condition. Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Other 12 13%
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Researcher 5 5%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 31 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 23%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 37 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,308,775
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#126
of 4,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,885
of 341,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#2
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,501 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.