ReviewActa orthopaedica2015
Quality of outcome data in knee arthroplasty.
Review in Acta orthopaedica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Correlation of revision rate of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of clinical studies and worldwide arthroplasty registers.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- 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 · 2021Pooled it
- No bias for developer publications and no difference between first-generation trochlear-resurfacing versus trochlear-cutting implants in 15,306 cases of patellofemoral joint arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018Pooled it
- Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018Pooled it
- Survivorship and functional outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017Pooled it
- The projected economic burden and complications of revision hip and knee arthroplasties: Insights from national registry studies.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Review
- Obesity has no significant association with revision rate and functional outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty-results from the New Zealand National Joint Registry.JSES international · 2025Article
- Intra-articular injection of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (mesenchymal stem cells) in KL grade III and IV knee osteoarthritis: 4 year results of 37 knees.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A Comprehensive Research on the Prevalence and Evolution Trend of Orthopedic Surgeries in Romania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- CORR Insights®: What Is the 10-year Survivorship of Cemented Distal Femoral Endoprostheses for Tumor Reconstructions and What Radiographic Features Are Associated with Survival?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020Article
- Management and clinical outcomes of periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty with a stem extension.Medicine · 2019Article
- Comparing contemporary revision burden among hip and knee joint replacement registries.Arthroplasty today · 2016Article
- Review
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR Revision of Unicondylar to Total Knee Arthoplasty: A Systematic Review.The open orthopaedics journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRecent reports on developer bias in unicondylar knee arthroplasty led to concerns about quality of publications regarding knee implants. We therefore compared revision rates of registry and non-registry studies from the beginning of knee arthroplasty up to the present. We assessed the time interval between market introduction of an implant and emergence of reliable data in non-registry studies. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe systematically reviewed registry studies (n = 6) and non-registry studies (n = 241) on knee arthroplasty published in indexed, peer-reviewed international scientific journals. The main outcome measure was revision rate per 100 observed component years. RESULTS AND
interpretationFor 82% of the 34 knee implants assessed, revision data from non-registry studies are either absent or poor. 91% of all studies were published in the second and third decade after market introduction. Only 5% of all studies and 1% of all revisions were published in the first decade. The first publications on revision rates of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) started 6 years after market introduction, and reliable data were found from year 12 onward in non-registry studies. However, in unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) the first publications on revision rates could be found first 13 years after market introduction. Revision rates of TKA from non-registry studies were reliable after year 12 following market introduction. UKA revision rates remained below the threshold of registry indices, and failed to demonstrate adjustment towards registries. Thus, the superiority of registry data over non-registry data regarding outcome measurement was validated.
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.