Beynnon 2002

Methods	Treatment allocation using a random numbers table Non blinded assessment Mean follow‐up: 39 months Loss to follow‐up: 6 PT and 6 HT (excluded from analyses) Graft re‐ruptures: not reported
Participants	USA 56 participants with chronic (> 6 months), isolated unilateral ACL tears PT: n = 28, mean 28.5 years (18 to 46 years), 18 males / 10 females HT: n = 28, mean 29.9 years (19 to 42 yrs), 13 males / 15 females
Interventions	Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with: 1. Patellar tendon (2 incisions; proximal and tibial fixation ‐ interference screw) versus 2. Hamstring tendon: semitendinosus/gracilis graft (2 strands; 2 incisions; proximal fixation ‐ Belt‐buckle type double‐staple technique; tibial fixation ‐ staple)
Outcomes	Mean 12 and 39 months follow‐up for: Static stability with KT‐1000 (90 N & 133 N); Lachman (0/1+2+3+); pivot shift; knee function (single‐leg hop, weight bearing, squats, stairs, run in place, duck walk); anterior knee pain; Tegner; return to sport/activity; strength with Cybex (60, 180, 240 deg/s); stiffness
Notes	No additional methodological information or individual patient data were received from the authors.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random number table.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Both groups had 6 patients lost to follow‐up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Did not report re‐ruptures, contralateral ruptures or withdrawals.
Other bias	Low risk