SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2013
Primary hip replacement prostheses and their evidence base: systematic review of literature.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness: umbrella review of level 1 evidence.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Association of acetabular implants with sensitive radiographic surveillance on revision rates: a study based on 5 hip arthroplasty registries.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- RecUrrent Intra-articular Corticosteroid injections in Osteoarthritis: the RUbICOn mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Article
- A LDH-Derived Metal Sulfide Nanosheet-Functionalized Bioactive Glass Scaffold for Vascularized Osteogenesis and Periprosthetic Infection Prevention/Treatment.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Lifecycle evaluation of medical devices: supporting or jeopardizing patient outcomes? A comparative analysis of evaluation models.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Clinical investigations to evaluate high-risk orthopaedic devices: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed medical literature.EFORT open reviews · 2023Article
- Gaps in the evidence underpinning high-risk medical devices in Europe at market entry, and potential solutions.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Review
- Risk of Recall Associated With Modifications to High-risk Medical Devices Approved Through US Food and Drug Administration Supplements.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Identification of implant outliers in joint replacement registries.EFORT open reviews · 2023Review
- External validation of the Tyrolean hip arthroplasty registry.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Enoxaparin versus New Oral Anticoagulants to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism after Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Mg-, Zn-, and Fe-Based Alloys With Antibacterial Properties as Orthopedic Implant Materials.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Bisphosphonates to reduce bone fractures in stage 3B+ chronic kidney disease: a propensity score-matched cohort study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Article
- Article
- Will registries slow down or accelerate innovation?EFORT open reviews · 2019Review
- Evaluation of the effectiveness of hip and knee implant models used in Catalonia: a protocol for a prospective registry-based study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2019Observational
- Acetabular Subchondral Bone Decortication and Its Role in the Outcome of Cemented Total Hip Replacement in Young Patients.Hip & pelvis · 2018Article
- Total hip arthroplasty: Survival and modes of failure.EFORT open reviews · 2018Article
- Antibiotic-loaded Bone Cement as Prophylaxis in Total Joint Replacement.Orthopaedic surgery · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the extent to which prostheses with no readily available evidence to support their use are being implanted in primary total hip arthroplasty.
designSystematic review of the literature. DATA SOURCES: The 9th annual report of the National Joint Registry of England and Wales (NJR) was analysed to identify prostheses with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel rating of "unclassified" or "pre-entry" used in primary total hip arthroplasty in 2011. A systematic review of those prostheses was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, OVID, and Google databases. STUDY SELECTION: Prostheses used in primary total hip arthroplasty as published in the NJR's 9th annual report were analysed. Only literature that included the name of the prosthesis was included. Literature yielded in the search results was excluded if it reported animal, non-orthopaedic, non-total hip arthroplasty, or non-device related studies.
resultsThe systematic review found that 24% (57/235) of all hip replacement implants available to surgeons in the UK have no evidence for their clinical effectiveness. It also shows that 10,617 (7.8%) of the 136,593 components used in primary hip replacements in 2011 were implanted without readily identifiable evidence of clinical effectiveness. These comprised 157 cemented stems (0.5% of 34,655 implanted), 936 (2.8% of 33,367) uncemented stems, 1732 (7.1% of 24,349) cemented cups, and 7577 (17.1% of 44,222) uncemented cups.
conclusionsThis study shows that a considerable proportion of prostheses available to orthopaedic surgeons have no readily available evidence of clinical effectiveness to support their use. Concern exists about the current system of device regulation, and the need for a revised process for introducing new orthopaedic devices is highlighted.
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.