Advertisement

Correction to: Arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears seems safe but higher level of evidence is needed: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature

  • Jelle P. van der ListEmail author
  • Harmen D. Vermeijden
  • Inger N. Sierevelt
  • Gregory S. DiFelice
  • Arthur van Noort
  • Gino M. M. J. Kerkhoffs
Open Access
Correction
  • 47 Downloads

Correction to: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05697-8

Unfortunately, the original publication of this article contains an error in table 1. The revised version of Table 1 is updated here. The original article has been corrected.
Table 1

Quality assessment of the included studies using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria

Authors

Year

Journal/meeting

Evidence

Study design

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Total

Achtnich et al. [1]

2016

Arthroscopy

III

Prospective

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

0

12

Ateschrang et al. [2]

2017

KSSTA

IV

Case series

2

2

2

2

0

1

1

0

10

Büchler et al. [11]

2016

Knee

IV

Case series

2

2

1

2

0

1

2

0

10

Häberli et al. [25]

2018

Knee

IV

Case series

2

2

1

2

0

2

2

0

11

Heusdens et al. [31]

2018

KSSTA

IV

Case series

2

2

2

1

0

1

2

1

11

Hoffmann et al. [33]

2017

J Orthop Surg Res

IV

Case series

2

2

0

2

1

2

2

0

11

Hoogeslag et al. [35]

2019

Am J Sports Med

I

RCT

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

15

Jonkergouw et al. [38]

2018

KSSTA

III

Retrospective

2

2

1

2

0

1

2

0

10

Kohl et al. [41]

2016

BJJ

IV

Case series

1

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

11

Krismer et al. [43]

2017

KSSTA

IVa

Case series

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

10

Meister et al. [52]

2017

KSSTA

IV

Case series

2

1

2

2

0

1

2

0

10

Mukhopadhyay et al. [54]

2018

Chin J Traumatol

IV

Case series

1

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

11

Osti et al. [62]

2019

KSSTA

IV

Case series

2

2

2

1

0

1

2

0

10

Only the non-comparative part of the MINORS criteria was used (i.e. first 8 questions). The criteria of MINORS [70] with 0 points when not reported, 1 when reported but not adequate, and 2 when reported and adequate. Maximum score is 16

1. A clearly stated aim: the question addressed should be precise and relevant in the light of available literature

2. Inclusion of consecutive patients: all patients potentially fit for inclusion (satisfying the criteria for inclusion) have been included in the study during the study period (no exclusion or details about the reasons for exclusion)

3. Prospective collection of data: data were collected according to a protocol established before the beginning of the study

4. End points appropriate to the aim of the study: unambiguous explanation of the criteria used to evaluate the main outcome which should be in accordance with the question addressed by the study. In addition, the end points should be assessed on an intention-to-treat basis

5. Unbiased assessment of the study end point: blind evaluation of objective end points and double-blind evaluation of subjective end points. Otherwise, the reasons for not blinding should be stated

6. Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study: the follow-up should be sufficiently long to allow the assessment of the main endpoint and possible adverse events

7. Loss to follow-up less than 5%: all patients should be included in the follow-up. Otherwise, the proportion lost to follow-up should not exceed the proportion experiencing the major end point

8. Prospective calculation of the study size: information of the size of detectable difference of interest with a calculation of 95% CI, according to the expected incidence of the outcome event, and information about the level for statistical

aThis study reported being a level II study but we have classified this case series with failure analysis as level IV study

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySpaarne Gasthuis HospitalHoofddorpThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Amsterdam UMC, Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Hospital for Special SurgeryDepartment of Orthopaedic SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Amsterdam UMC, Academic Center for Evidence Based Sports Medicine (ACES)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Collaboration On Health and Safety in Sports (ACHSS)University of Amsterdam, IOC Research CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations