TY - JOUR T1 - Twenty year follow-up of ACL reconstruction (<em>AJSM</em>)—the evidence of experience JF - British Journal of Sports Medicine JO - Br J Sports Med SP - 509 LP - 510 DO - 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095710 VL - 50 IS - 9 AU - Bob McCormack AU - Mark R Hutchinson Y1 - 2016/05/01 UR - http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/50/9/509.abstract N2 - As clinicians and academics, we are challenged to sift through a myriad of publications with the key goal and purpose of assessing whether the quality of the data and research is good enough to have an impact on the way we practice and on our responsibility to optimise the care of our patients.1–6 Various categorisations of the quality of evidence are available with one of the classics being level of evidence 1 used for high-quality randomised control trials, level of evidence 2 for prospective cohort studies, level of evidence 3 for cohort studies, level of evidence 4 for descriptive case series, and level of evidence 5 for ‘expert’ opinion.For some, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have taken a pre-eminent place in the hierarchy of evidence superseding even a high-quality, well-targeted, randomised control trial. However, one must bear in mind that the weak link of any systematic review/meta-analysis is the fact that the authors may not have performed … ER -