ArticleEFORT open reviews2018
Research methodology for orthopaedic surgeons, with a focus on outcome.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-Driven Strategies in Orthopaedics: Optimizing Surgical Precision and Patient Outcomes.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Reliability and validity of the Finnish version of the AO spine PROST (patient reported outcome spine trauma).Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Testing the proportional hazards assumption in cox regression and dealing with possible non-proportionality in total joint arthroplasty research: methodological perspectives and review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Impact of industry 4.0 to create advancements in orthopaedics.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2020Article
- Evaluating learning and change in orthopaedics: What is the evidence-base?World journal of orthopedics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since improving the patient's condition is the ultimate goal of clinical care and research, this review of research methodology focuses on outcomes in the musculoskeletal field.This paper provides an overview of conceptual models, different types of outcomes and commonly assessed outcomes in orthopaedics as well as epidemiological and statistical aspects of outcomes determination, measurement and interpretation.Clinicians should determine the outcome(s) most important to patients and/or public health in collaboration with the patients, epidemiologists/statisticians and other stakeholders.Key points in outcome choice are to evaluate both the benefit and harm of a health intervention, and to consider short- and longer-term outcomes including patient-reported outcomes.Outcome estimation should aim at identifying a clinically important difference (not the same as a statistically significant difference), at presenting measures of effects with confidence intervals and at taking the necessary steps to minimize bias. Cite this article:
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.