SynthesisActa orthopaedica2014
Adherence of hip and knee arthroplasty studies to RSA standardization guidelines. A systematic review.
Synthesis in Acta orthopaedica, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04064723 (Link LCU + Lima Delta TT vs DePuy Corail + Pinnacle. A Comparative Study of Stem and Cup Fixation and Polyethylene Wear), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Link LCU + Lima Delta TT vs DePuy Corail + Pinnacle. A Comparative Study of Stem and Cup Fixation and Polyethylene Wear
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adherence to the RSA and CT-RSA guideline items in clinical prosthesis migration studies: a systematic review.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Pooled it
- Early cup migration and wear as predictors for later aseptic loosening: a secondary evaluation of a randomized controlled RSA trial on cemented hip arthroplasties with 18-year follow-up.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Trial
- Guideline for RSA and CT-RSA implant migration measurements: an update of standardizations and recommendations.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Article
- Reflections on the RSA guidelines.Acta orthopaedica · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeGuidelines for standardization of radiostereometry (RSA) of implants were published in 2005 to facilitate comparison of outcomes between various research groups. In this systematic review, we determined how well studies have adhered to these guidelines.
methodsWe carried out a literature search to identify all articles published between January 2000 and December 2011 that used RSA in the evaluation of hip or knee prosthesis migration. 2 investigators independently evaluated each of the studies for adherence to the 13 individual guideline items. Since some of the 13 points included more than 1 criterion, studies were assessed on whether each point was fully met, partially met, or not met.
results153 studies that met our inclusion criteria were identified. 61 of these were published before the guidelines were introduced (2000-2005) and 92 after the guidelines were introduced (2006-2011). The methodological quality of RSA studies clearly improved from 2000 to 2011. None of the studies fully met all 13 guidelines. Nearly half (43) of the studies published after the guidelines demonstrated a high methodological quality and adhered at least partially to 10 of the 13 guidelines, whereas less than one-fifth (11) of the studies published before the guidelines had the same methodological quality. Commonly unaddressed guideline items were related to imaging methodology, determination of precision from double examinations, and also mean error of rigid-body fitting and condition number cutoff levels.
interpretationThe guidelines have improved methodological reporting in RSA studies, but adherence to these guidelines is still relatively low. There is a need to update and clarify the guidelines for clinical hip and knee arthroplasty RSA studies.
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.