Trial reportActa orthopaedica2011
No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty.
Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metal ion levels and functional results after either resurfacing hip arthroplasty or conventional metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.Acta orthopaedica · 2011Trial
- Clinical and radiological outcomes of trabecular metal systems and antiprotrusion cages in acetabular revision surgery with severe defects: a comparative study.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- Hip Replacement or Hip Resurfacing with a Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Acetabular Bearing: A Qualitative and Quantitative Preference Study.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeHip resurfacing arthroplasty (RHA) is done in patients who often have a high preference for the method. This preference can influence the clinical outcome and satisfaction. We evaluated the potential influence of this preference bias. PATIENTS AND
methodsFrom an ongoing randomized trial comparing RHA with total hip arthroplasty, 28 consecutive patients (28 hips) who had been allocated to an RHA were characterized as the "randomized" group. 22 other patients (24 hips) who had refused participation and had especially requested an RHA were characterized as the "preference" group. Harris hip score (HHS), Oxford hip score (OHS), University of California at Los Angeles activity scale (UCLA), Short Form 12 (SF-12), and visual analog scale satisfaction score (VAS) were assessed in both groups.
resultsBoth groups had a high implant satisfaction score (97/100 for the "preference" group and 93/100 for the "randomized" group) at 12 months. The HHS, OHS, and UCLA were similar at baseline and also revealed a similar improvement up to 12 months (p < 0.001). Regarding the SF-12, the "preference" group scored lower on the mental subscale preoperatively (p = 0.03), and there was a greater increase after 12 months (p = 0.03).
interpretationWe could not show that there was any influence of preference on satisfaction with the implant and early clinical outcome in patients who underwent RHA. The difference in mental subscale scores between groups may still indicate a difference in psychological profile.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.