Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28801413›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2017

Effectiveness of rehabilitation after a total hip arthroplasty: a protocol for an observational study for the comparison of usual care in the Netherlands versus Germany.

Gesine H Seeber, Annet Wijnen, Djordje Lazovic, Sjoerd K Bulstra, Günter Dietz, Christiaan P van Lingen, Martin Stevens

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Economic analyses of fast-track total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Gesine H SeeberUniversitätsklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Medizinischer Campus Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Annet WijnenUniversitätsklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Medizinischer Campus Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3899-2952
Djordje LazovicUniversitätsklinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Medizinischer Campus Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Sjoerd K BulstraDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Günter DietzKlinik für Orthopädische und Rheumatologische Rehabilitation Reha-Zentrum am Meer Bad Zwischenahn, Bad Zwischenahn, Germany.
Christiaan P van LingenDepartment of Orthopedics, Ommelander Ziekenhuis Groep, Winschoten, The Netherlands.
Martin StevensDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NLPius Hospital Oldenburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOsteoarthritis is the most common joint disorder worldwide. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is considered one of the most effective treatments for end-stage hip osteoarthritis. The number of THAs is expected to increase dramatically in the coming decades. Usual postoperative rehabilitation after primary THA differs between the German and the Dutch system. In the Netherlands, patients undergo fast-track surgery and are discharged into their home environment within a few days without receiving any aftercare. In Germany, patients stay in the hospital for about 12 days before being transferred to a rehabilitation centre for a period of 3 weeks. The superficially more cost-effective Dutch system of usual care after THA is judged critically in both countries due to suboptimal rehabilitation outcomes. The aim of this study is therefore to compare the Dutch with the German usual care rehabilitation after primary THA. It is hypothesised that the German procedure is more effective in terms of functional outcomes and patient satisfaction than the Dutch procedure and that in the long run the German approach is more cost-effective than the Dutch system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Medical effectiveness will be assessed at four different time points by means of patient self-reported questionnaires and functional tests. Assessments include the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, Short Form 36, EuroQol 5 Dimensions 3 Level Questionnaire, Timed Up & Go Test and Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test. Additionally, long-term economic aspects in both countries will be assessed from a societal perspective, to get a first impression on whether cutting costs for rehabilitation, as practised in the Netherlands, really disburdens the healthcare system efficiently. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Institutional Review Boards of both University Medical Center Groningen (METc2015/483) and Hannover Medical School (no 2874-2015) and will be conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (64th, 2013). The results of the study will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. Patient data will be presented anonymously in any publication or scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00011345; Pre-results.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultAgedArthroplasty, Replacement, HipCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGermanyHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOsteoarthritis, HipProspective StudiesQuality of Lifemedical rehabilitationtotal hip arthroplastyusual care comparison

Identifiers

PMID28801413
PMCPMC5629641
OpenAlexW2743622443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.