Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18806998›Full record

ArticleDer Orthopade2008

[Determining the indication for primary total hip and knee replacement. Results of external quality assurance of over 270,000 primary total hip and knee replacements].

P Schräder, O Boy, W Schleiz, R Dienst, C Reinert, V Sänger, H-H Schauwecker, W Siebert, H-P Scharf

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Orthopade, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

P SchräderBQS Bundesgeschäftsstelle Qualitätssicherung, Kanzlerstrasse 4, 40472, Düsseldorf, Deutschland. peter.schraeder@bqs-online.de
O Boy
W Schleiz
R Dienst
C Reinert
V Sänger
H-H Schauwecker
W Siebert
H-P Scharf

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe German mandatory quality assurance programme collects data from all primary total hip and knee replacements. The quality of the indication is measured by clinical and radiological criteria. The results were analysed in terms of differences in establishing the indication subject to patient and hospital characteristics. MATERIALS AND

methodsData on more than 270,000 primary total hip and knee replacements that were operated in 2006 in Germany were analysed concerning differences in the quality of the indication subject to age, gender, hospital volume and density of population and hospitals (metropolitan vs rural areas). The statistical analysis was done by exact Fisher's test.

resultsThe quality of the indication was statistically significantly better in men, patients 60 and older, in rural areas and in high volume hospitals (50 and more joint replacements per year). DISCUSSION: Data of this mandatory German quality assurance programme are useful to describe differences in medical care. The results are valid and complete. An exact analysis of the reasons for these differences is difficult though. Data focus is on quality assurance and represent only in-hospital results.

conclusionFurther analyses are necessary to ascertain whether the differences in quality of care are deficits or only variances in medical care.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeQuality Assurance, Health CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsData CollectionData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality Indicators, Health CareRural Population

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.