23 August 2022>: Meta-Analysis
Optimal Surgical Treatment Method for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis
Yudi Wu 1CDEF , Yajia Li 2BCD , Jia Guo 2BC , Qiangxiang Li 34BC , Jianhuang Wu 35BCD , Ziqin Cao 5ABCDEF* , Yulin Song 6ABCDEF*DOI: 10.12659/MSM.937118
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937118
Table 8 The league plots of failure rate. Main network analysis (red) and subgroup analysis (blue). (From the top left to the bottom right, higher comparator vs lower comparator, RR with 95% CI).
Autograft | 1.37 (0.74, 2.52) | 1.06 (0.41, 2.72) | 0.96 (0.43, 2.14) | 1.94 (0.79, 4.78) | 3.52 (1.83, 6.76) |
0.85 (0.38, 1.91) | nirAllograft | 0.77 (0.25, 2.35) | 0.70 (0.26, 1.91) | 1.42 (0.47, 4.30) | 2.58 (1.17, 5.69) |
0.60 (0.26, 1.39) | 0.70 (0.22, 2.24) | Hybrid | 0.91 (0.26, 3.15) | 1.84 (0.51, 6.68) | 3.33 (1.16, 9.53) |
0.47 (0.19, 1.19) | 0.56 (0.16, 1.89) | 0.79 (0.22, 2.79) | waRepair | 2.02 (0.86, 4.71) | 3.66 (1.32, 10.13) |
0.29 (0.10, 0.85) | 0.35 (0.09, 1.32) | 0.49 (0.13, 1.92) | 0.62 (0.20, 1.98) | nwaRepair | 1.81 (0.58, 5.70) |
0.30 (0.13, 0.73) | 0.36 (0.12, 1.07) | 0.51 (0.17, 1.55) | 0.64 (0.18, 2.27) | 1.03 (0.26, 4.07) | irAllograft |