Kuhn, Andrew W.

Background: A critical component of conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses is assessing the methodological quality and bias of included studies. Several methodological quality assessment tools have been developed; however, these tools may not be relevant to observational sports medicine research, which carries numerous unique nuances and biases. Purpose: To develop the Sport Publication Observational Research Tool (SPORT), which evaluates and scores the methodological quality of observational sports medicine research. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: SPORT was developed through a modified Delphi approach involving members from the Herodicus Society and The FORUM. All active members were invited to participate in the process aimed at building consensus on SPORT content and scoring. After finalizing SPORT, a power analysis led to the independent selection of 55 observational clinical sports medicine studies, which were scored twice by 4 reviewers of varying training levels. Interrater and intrarater reliability for SPORT was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The distribution and percentiles for total SPORT score across the 55 studies were calculated. SPORT was also compared with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a commonly utilized quality assessment tool. Results: A total of 51 members participated and achieved 100%, 100%, 98.0%, and 98.0% completion rates for rounds 1 through 4, respectively. The final SPORT included 19 subscores related to methodological quality and bias and achieved 94% consensus approval. Mean SPORT completion time was 6 minutes and 19 seconds per study, which varied significantly by reviewer training level. The subscore "peer review" demonstrated unacceptable reliability and was removed. The remaining 18 subscores exhibited ICC ranges of 0.599 to 0.955 for interrater reliability and 0.530 to 0.936 for intrarater reliability. Total SPORT score demonstrated excellent agreement, for interrater (ICC, 0.967) and intrarater reliability (ICC, 0.966). Median SPORT score across the 55 studies was 20.0 and skewed toward lower scores. There was a moderate significant correlation between SPORT and MINORS ( r [53] = 0.575; P < .001). Conclusion: An objective tool to assess the methodologic quality of observational sports medicine research (SPORT) was successfully developed through a modified Delphi approach with numerous content experts in the field. This tool may be useful in assessing the methodological quality of primary observational sports medicine studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Abstract Medial meniscus extrusion, particularly in the setting of medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs), has become an area of interest in recent years due to the correlation between meniscus extrusion with inferior clinical outcomes, progression to osteoarthritis, and increased rate of conversion to total knee arthroplasty after MMPRT repair. This correlation led to the development of meniscus centralisations procedures that can be performed in addition to MMPRT repair and/or high tibial osteotomy. Although it was originally thought that medial meniscus extrusion was a consequence of MMPRTs, it has been reported that meniscus extrusion often precedes the development of MMPRTs, which suggests that there may be underlying meniscus pathology that predisposes to the development of both meniscus extrusion and MMPRTs. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the anatomy, pathology, and surgical management of meniscus extrusion and MMPRTs, while identifying areas of future research to further elucidate the relationship meniscus extrusion and MMPRTs that may be necessary to improve outcomes after MMPRT repair. Level of Evidence Level V.