Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21434760›Full record

ReviewActa orthopaedica2011

Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty registry data.

Gerold Labek, Kathrin Sekyra, Wolfram Pawelka, Wolfgang Janda, Bernd Stöckl

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Acta orthopaedica, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Cementless unicompartmental knee replacement achieves better ten-year clinical outcomes than cemented: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Survivorship and functional outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Causes of revision following Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2014
    Pooled it
  9. Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: are failure modes different?Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2013
    Pooled it
  10. Improved accuracy in computer-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2013
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gerold LabekDepartment of Orthopaedics, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria.
Kathrin Sekyra
Wolfram Pawelka
Wolfgang Janda
Bernd Stöckl

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe reproducibility of results and potential confounders in sample-based studies is important to consider in the assessment of studies. Comprehensive arthroplasty registers could serve as a reference dataset for comparative analyses. We analyzed an implant that is frequently used worldwide, the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement, in order to identify potential confounders inherent in the datasets and to evaluate the outcome achieved with this implant.

methodsWe performed a structured literature review of the data published on the revision rate of the Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Both clinical follow-up studies and worldwide registry data were included. Confidence intervals were calculated to determine the statistical significance of differences.

resultsA substantial proportion of the published data (52-68% depending on the method of calculation) is derived from studies involving participation of the institution that developed the implant. The results published by this group show a statistically significant deviation from the reference datasets from registers or independent studies. Data from the developing hospital show mean revision rates that are 4 times lower than those based on worldwide register data, and 3 times lower than the ones quoted in independent studies. On average, the data published in independent studies are reproducible in registry data.

interpretationA conventional meta-analysis of clinical studies is substantially affected by the influence of the developing hospital, and is therefore subject to bias. For assessment of the outcome of implants, registry data are superior and, in terms of reference data for the detection of potential bias factors in the literature, could make an essential contribution to meta-analyses.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFollow-Up StudiesHumansKnee ProsthesisMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOutcome Assessment, Health CareProsthesis DesignRegistriesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21434760
PMCPMC3235280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.