Methodologic Quality of Knee Articular Cartilage Studies


      (1) To evaluate the quality of knee articular cartilage surgery literature using established methodologic quality instruments, and (2) to assess whether study quality has improved with time.


      A systematic review was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), osteochondral autograft and allograft transplant, and microfracture were analyzed. Study methodologic quality was assessed by the level of evidence and 9 different methodologic quality questionnaires. Comparisons were made between different surgical technique groups by use of Student's t tests. Assessment of study quality improvement with time was performed by comparison of the Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) from the included studies (2004 to present) and CMS from a prior study assessing quality of articular cartilage studies (1985 to 2004). Furthermore, assessment of study quality improvement with time was performed over the period of the included studies (2004 to present).


      We included 194 studies (11,787 subjects). Most evidence was Level IV (76%) and nonrandomized (91%). ACI was the most commonly reported technique (62% of studies). Only 34% of studies denied the presence of a financial conflict of interest. The mean subject age was 33.5 ± 8.2 years, and the mean length of follow-up was 3.7 ± 2.3 years. By use of study quality questionnaires, the methodologic quality of articular cartilage studies was poor. However, study quality (after 2004) was significantly improved versus that reported from a prior study (before 2004) using the CMS (P < .01). The mean level of evidence, CMS, CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score, and Jadad score showed no significant improvement over the period of the included studies (P > .05). The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was significantly higher than that of non-RCTs (P < .05). The most common study weaknesses included blinding, subject selection process, study type, sample size calculation, and outcome measures and assessment.


      The methodologic quality of knee articular cartilage surgery studies was poor overall and also for individual techniques (ACI, osteochondral autograft transplant, osteochondral allograft transplant, and microfracture). However, the overall quality of the investigations in this review (after June 2004) has significantly improved in comparison to those published before 2004. The quality of RCTs was significantly higher than that of non-RCTs. Level of evidence, CMS, CONSORT score, and Jadad score did not significantly improve with later publication date within the period of the studies analyzed. Methodologic quality deficiencies identified in this investigation may be used to guide future articular cartilage studies’ design, conduct, and reporting.

      Level of Evidence

      Level IV, systematic review of studies with Levels of Evidence I-IV.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Arthroscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Curl W.
        • Krome J.
        • Gordon E.
        • Rushing J.
        • Smith B.
        • Poehling G.
        Cartilage injuries: A review of 31,516 knee arthroscopies.
        Arthroscopy. 1997; 13: 456-460
        • Widuchowski W.
        • Widuchowski J.
        • Trzaska T.
        Articular cartilage defects: Study of 25,124 knee arthroscopies.
        Knee. 2007; 14: 177-182
        • Behery O.
        • Karnes J.
        • Siston R.
        • Harris J.
        • Flanigan D.
        Factors influencing the outcome of ACI: A systematic review.
        J Knee Surg. 12 November, 2012; ([Epub ahead of print.])
        • Harris J.D.
        • Brophy R.H.
        • Jia G.
        • et al.
        Sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging for detection of patellofemoral articular cartilage defects.
        Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 1728-1737
        • Heir S.
        • Nerhus T.
        • Rotterud J.
        • et al.
        Focal cartilage defects in the knee impair quality of life as much as severe osteoarthritis.
        Am J Sports Med. 2010; 38: 231-237
      1. CfMMS (CMS [Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services]). Hospital care quality information from the consumer perspective. Available from: Accessed May 6, 2012.

        • Jakobsen R.
        • Engebretsen L.
        • Slauterbeck J.
        An analysis of the quality of cartilage repair studies.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 2232-2239
        • Worthen J.
        • Waterman C.P.
        • Davidson P.A.
        • Lubowitz J.H.
        Limitations and sources of bias in clinical knee cartilage research.
        Arthroscopy. 2012; 28: 1315-1325
        • Harris J.D.
        • Siston R.A.
        • Brophy R.H.
        • Lattermann C.
        • Carey J.L.
        • Flanigan D.C.
        Failures, re-operations, and complications after autologous chondrocyte implantation—A systematic review.
        Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011; 19: 779-791
        • Harris J.D.
        • Siston R.A.
        • Pan X.
        • Flanigan D.C.
        Autologous chondrocyte implantation: A systematic review.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92: 2220-2233
        • Griesser M.J.
        • Harris J.D.
        • Campbell J.E.
        • Jones G.L.
        Adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder: A systematic review of the effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injections.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93: 1727-1733
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1006-1012
        • Obremskey W.
        • Pappas N.
        • Attallah-Wasif E.
        • Tornetta P.
        • Bhandari M.
        Levels of evidence in orthopaedic journals.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 2632-2638
        • Coleman B.
        • Khan K.
        • Maffulli N.
        • Cook J.
        • Wark J.
        Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: Clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies.
        Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000; 10: 2-11
        • Tallon C.
        • Coleman B.
        • Khan K.
        • Maffulli N.
        Outcome of surgery for chronic Achilles tendinopathy. A critical review.
        Am J Sports Med. 2001; 29: 315-320
        • Roy J.
        • MacDermid J.
        • Woodhouse L.
        Measuring shoulder function: A systematic review of four questionnaires.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2009; 61: 623-632
      2. Trials TCG-TRo (The CONSORT Group - Transparent Reporting of Trials). The CONSORT statement. January 20, 2012. Available from: Accessed November 3, 2012.

      3. Jadad A. Enkin M. Randomized controlled trials: Questions, answers, and musings. Ed 2. Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey2007
        • Detsky A.S.
        • Naylor C.D.
        • O’Rourke K.
        • McGeer A.J.
        • L’Abbe K.A.
        Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1992; 45: 255-265
      4. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. Resources for developing a review. Available from: Accessed January 8, 2013.

        • Verhagen A.
        • deVet H.
        • deBie R.
        • et al.
        The Delphi list: A criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi Consensus.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1235-1241
        • Boutron I.
        • Moher D.
        • Tugwell P.
        • et al.
        A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 1233-1240
        • Wright J.
        • Swiontkowski M.
        • Heckman J.
        Introducing levels of evidence to the journal.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 1-3
        • Noordin S.
        • Wright J.G.
        • Howard A.
        Relationship between declared funding support and level of evidence.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92: 1647-1651
        • Okike K.
        • Kocher M.S.
        • Mehlman C.T.
        • Bhandari M.
        Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research. An association between findings and funding in scientific presentations.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 608-613
        • Hsu J.
        • Liu S.
        • Lee G.
        Can we trust studies published by authors with financial conflicts? Using the decline of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty to investigate.
        J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27: 41-45.e1
        • Gikas P.
        • Morris T.
        • Carrington R.
        • Skinner J.
        • Bentley G.
        • Briggs T.
        A correlation between the timing of biopsy after autologous chondrocyte implantation and the histological appearance.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91: 1172-1177
        • Brun P.
        • Dickinson S.C.
        • Zavan B.
        • Cortivo R.
        • Hollander A.P.
        • Abatangelo G.
        Characteristics of repair tissue in second-look and third-look biopsies from patients treated with engineered cartilage: Relationship to symptomatology and time after implantation.
        Arthritis Res Ther. 2008; 10: R132
        • Harris J.
        • Brophy R.
        • Siston R.
        • Flanigan D.
        Treatment of chondral defects in the athlete’s knee.
        Arthroscopy. 2010; 26: 841-852
        • Gudas R.
        • Stankevicius E.
        • Monastyreckiene E.
        • Pranys D.
        • Kalesinkskas R.
        Osteochondral autologous transplantation versus microfracture for the treatment of articular cartilage defects in the knee joint in athletes.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006; 14: 834-842
        • Mithoefer K.
        • Williams R.
        • Warren R.
        • Wickiewicz T.
        • Marx R.
        High-impact athletics after knee articular cartilage repair: A prospective evaluation of the microfracture technique.
        Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34: 1413-1418
        • Gobbi A.
        • Nunag P.
        • Malinowski K.
        Treatment of full thickness chondral lesions of the knee with microfracture in a group of athletes.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005; 13: 213-221
        • Blevins F.
        • Steadman J.
        • Rodrigo J.
        • Silliman J.
        Treatment of articular cartilage defects in athletes: An analysis of functional outcome and lesions appearance.
        Orthopedics. 1998; 21: 761-767
        • Fauno P.
        • Nielsen A.B.
        Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: A long-term follow-up.
        Arthroscopy. 1992; 8: 345-349
        • Fairbank T.
        Knee joint changes after meniscectomy.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1948; 30: 664-670
        • Minas T.
        • Gomoll A.
        • Rosenberger R.
        • Royce R.
        • Bryant T.
        Increased failure rate of autologous chondrocyte implantation after previous treatment with marrow stimulation techniques.
        Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37: 902-908
        • Li R.T.
        • Lorenz S.
        • Xu Y.
        • Harner C.D.
        • Fu F.H.
        • Irrgang J.J.
        Predictors of radiographic knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
        Am J Sports Med. 2011; 39: 2595-2603
        • Gomoll A.H.
        High tibial osteotomy for the treatment of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis: A review of the literature, indications, and technique.
        Phys Sportsmed. 2011; 39: 45-54
        • Gomoll A.H.
        • Kang R.W.
        • Chen A.L.
        • Cole B.J.
        Triad of cartilage restoration for unicompartmental arthritis treatment in young patients: Meniscus allograft transplantation, cartilage repair and osteotomy.
        J Knee Surg. 2009; 22: 137-141
        • Harris J.D.
        • Cavo M.
        • Brophy R.
        • Siston R.
        • Flanigan D.
        Biological knee reconstruction: A systematic review of combined meniscal allograft transplantation and cartilage repair or restoration.
        Arthroscopy. 2011; 27: 409-418
        • Harris J.
        • Flanigan D.
        Management of knee articular cartilage injuries.
        in: Dragoo J. Modern arthroscopy. InTech, New York2011: 103-128
        • Brittberg M.
        • Lindahl A.
        • Nilsson A.
        • Ohlsson C.
        • Isaksson O.
        • Peterson L.
        Treatment of deep cartilage defects in the knee with autologous chondrocyte transplantation.
        N Engl J Med. 1994; 331: 889-895
        • Trinh T.Q.
        • Harris J.D.
        • Flanigan D.C.
        Surgical management of juvenile osteochondritis dissecans of the knee.
        Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012; 20: 2419-2429
        • Wang D.
        • Jones M.H.
        • Khair M.M.
        • Miniaci A.
        Patient-reported outcome measures for the knee.
        J Knee Surg. 2011; 23: 137-151
        • Braun H.J.
        • Gold G.E.
        Advanced MRI of articular cartilage.
        Imaging Med. 2011; 3: 541-555
        • Quatman C.E.
        • Quatman-Yates C.C.
        • Schmitt L.C.
        • Paterno M.V.
        The clinical utility and diagnostic performance of MRI for identification and classification of knee osteochondritis dissecans.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94: 1036-1044
        • Quatman C.E.
        • Hettrich C.M.
        • Schmitt L.C.
        • Spindler K.P.
        The clinical utility and diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging for identification of early and advanced knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review.
        Am J Sports Med. 2011; 39: 1557-1568