. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Feb 1.

Published in final edited form as: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016 Dec 31;69(2):201–208. doi: 10.1002/acr.22940

Table 1.

Model input parameters

		Cohort
Parameter		No Injury (referent) Base [95% CI] (Range)	Surgically Treated ACL without MT Base [95% CI] (Range)	Non-Operatively Treated ACL without MT Base [95% CI] (Range)	ACL with MT Base [95% CI] (Range)	References
Age at baseline		25				Assumption
Female (%)		49.1%				²⁵
Meniscal Tear	MT Prevalence at Baseline	0%	0%	0%	100%	Assumption
	MT Annual Incidence Probability (Under age 50)	0%	0.61% [0.61%, 0.62%] (0.15 – 1.22%)	0.92% [0.91%, 0.93%] (0.23 – 1.83%)	N/A	²⁹
	Relative Risk of OA Incidence due to MT	N/A	2.89 [2.17, 3.85] (2 – 10)	2.89 [2.17, 3.85] (2 – 10)	2.89 [2.17, 3.85] (2 – 10)	^16,37–41
	Relative Risk of OA Progression due to MT	N/A	3.40 [1.80, 6.20] (2 – 6)	3.40 [1.80, 6.20] (2 – 6)	3.40 [1.80, 6.20] (2 – 6)	⁷
ACL Tear	ACL Tear Prevalence at Baseline	0%	100%	100%	100%	Assumption
	Relative Risk of OA Incidence due to ACL tear	N/A	1 (1 – 3)	1 (1 – 3)	1 (1 – 3)	^37,41
	Relative Risk of OA Progression due to ACL tear	N/A	1 (1 – 3.4)	1 (1 – 3.4)	1 (1 – 3.4)	^7,41,42,45

Base case assumption is that ACL tears do not carry an increased relative risk of OA incidence or progression. However, we performed a sensitivity analysis that assumed ACL tears themselves have as much of an impact on OA incidence and progression as meniscal tears do in our base case.