Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28558822›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

Do outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials of joint replacement surgery fulfil the OMERACT 2.0 Filter? A review of the 2008 and 2013 literature.

Peter D H Wall, Bethan L Richards, Andrew Sprowson, Rachelle Buchbinder, Jasvinder A Singh

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Peter D H WallWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Bethan L RichardsInstitute of Rheumatology and Orthopaedics, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Andrew SprowsonWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Rachelle BuchbinderDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Frankston, VIC, Australia.
Jasvinder A SinghBirmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower 805B, 510 20th Street S, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. jsingh@uabmc.edu.
University of Warwick · GBCabrini Hospital · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is not known, whether outcome reporting in trials of total joint arthroplasty in the recent years is adequate or not. Our objective was to assess whether outcomes reported in total joint replacement (TJR) trials fulfil the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0.

methodsWe systematically reviewed all TJR trials in adults, published in English in 2008 or 2013. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Two authors independently applied the inclusion criteria for the studies, and any disagreement was resolved with a third review author. All outcome measures were abstracted using a pre-piloted standardised data extraction form and assessed for whether they mapped to one of the three OMERACT Filter 2.0 core areas: pathophysiological, life impact, and death.

resultsFrom 1635 trials identified, we included 70 trials (30 in 2008 and 40 in 2013) meeting the eligibility criteria. Twenty-two (31%) trials reported the three essential OMERACT core areas. Among the 27 hip replacement surgery trials and 39 knee replacement surgery trials included, 11 hip (41%) and nine knee (23%) trials reported all three essential OMERACT core areas. The most common outcome domains/measures were pain (20/27, 74%) and function (23/27, 85%) in hip trials and pain (26/39, 67%) and function (27/39, 69%) in knee trials. Results were similar for shoulder and hand joint replacement trials.

conclusionsWe identified significant gaps in the measurement of OMERACT core outcome areas in TJR trials, despite the majority reporting outcome domains of pain and function. An international consensus of key stakeholders is needed to develop a core domain set for reporting of TJR trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009216.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeConsensusHumansPainCore areasMeta-analysisOMERACT filterSystematic reviewTotal joint arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID28558822
PMCPMC5450048
OpenAlexW2618087654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.