Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27295038›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Increased Mortality in Metal-on-Metal versus Non-Metal-on-Metal Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty at 10 Years and Longer Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

B G Pijls, J M T A Meessen, J W Schoones, M Fiocco, H J L van der Heide, A Sedrakyan, R G H H Nelissen

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Spotlight Commentary: A post approval look at anticoagulants.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

B G PijlsDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5351-5057
J M T A MeessenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
J W SchoonesWalaeus Library, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1120-4781
M FioccoDepartment of Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
H J L van der HeideDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
A SedrakyanFDA Medical Device Epidemiology (MDEpiNet) Science and Infrastructure Center, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States of America.
R G H H NelissenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLLeiden University · NLUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThere are concerns about increased mortality in patients with metal-on-metal bearings in total hip arthroplasty (THA).

objectiveTo determine the mortality and the morbidity in patients with metal-on-metal articulations (MOM THA) compared to patients with non-metal-on-metal articulations (non-MOM THA) after primary total hip arthroplasty. DATA SOURCES: Search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL, AcademicSearchPremier, ScienceDirect, Wiley and clinical trial registers through March 2015, augmented by a hand search of references from the included articles. No language restrictions were applied. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers screened and identified randomised controlled trials and observational studies of primary total hip arthroplasty comparing MOM THA with non-MOM THA. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Risk differences (RD) were calculated with random effect models. Meta-regression was used to explore modifying factors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Difference in mortality and difference in morbidity expressed as revisions and medical complications between patients with MOM THA and non-MOM THA.

resultsForty-seven studies were included, comprising 4,000 THA in randomised trials and over 500,000 THA in observational studies. For mortality, random effects analysis revealed a higher pooled RD of 0.7%, 95%, confidence interval (CI) [0.0%, 2.3%], I-square 42%; the heterogeneity was explained by differences in follow-up. When restricted to studies with long term follow-up (i.e. 10 years or more), the RD for mortality was 8.5%, 95%, CI [5.8%, 11.2%]; number needed to treat was 12. Further subgroup analyses and meta-regression random effects models revealed no evidence for other moderator variables (study level covariates, e.g. resurfacing vs. non-resurfacing MOM) than follow-up duration. The quality of the evidence presented in this meta-analysis was characterized as moderate according to the CLEAR-NPT (for non-pharmacological trials) and Cochrane risk of bias Table. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Meta-analysis suggests there may be an increased long-term risk of mortality and revision surgery for patients with MOM THA compared to patients with non-MOM THA. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014007417.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipFollow-Up StudiesHip ProsthesisHumansMetal-on-Metal Joint ProsthesesMortalityProsthesis FailureReoperation

Identifiers

PMID27295038
PMCPMC4905643
OpenAlexW2430901713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.