Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30341116›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Engineering standards for trauma and orthopaedic implants worldwide: a systematic review protocol.

Frederick Henshaw, Eleni Karasouli, Richard King, Usama Rahman, David Langton, June Madete, Fred Otsyeno, Vincent Mutiso, John Atinga, Martin Underwood and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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. Review
  2. Global Health Inequities in Orthopaedic Care: Perspectives Beyond the US.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Impact of Design on Medical Device Safety.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2020
    Review
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

12 authors.

Frederick HenshawDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0193-1857
Eleni KarasouliWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Richard KingDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
Usama RahmanDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
David LangtonWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
June MadeteDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.
Fred OtsyenoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya.
Vincent MutisoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
John AtingaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Martin UnderwoodDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.
Mark WilliamsWarwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Andrew MetcalfeDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite multiple scandals in the medical implant sector, premarket testing has been the attention of little published research. Complications related to new devices, such as the DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR, DePuy Synthes, USA), have raised the issue of how designs are tested and whether engineering standards remain up to date with our understanding of implant biomechanics. Despite much work setting up national joint registries to improve implant monitoring, there have been few academic studies examining the premarket engineering standards new implants must meet. Emerging global economies mean that the markets have changed, and it is unknown to what degree engineering standards vary around the world. Governments, industry and independent regulatory bodies all produce engineering standards; therefore, the comparison of surgical implants across different manufacturers and jurisdictions is difficult. In this review, we will systematically collate and compare engineering standards for trauma and orthopaedic implants around the world. This will help inform patient, hospital and surgeon choice and provide an evidence base for future research in this area. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. We will conduct a systematic review of trauma and orthopaedic engineering standards from four main sources of information as identified in our preliminary scoping searches: governments, industry, independent regulatory bodies and engineering and medical publications. Any current standard relevant to trauma and orthopaedic implants will be included. We will use a predefined search strategy and follow the recommendations of the Cochrane handbook where applicable. We will undertake a narrative synthesis with qualitative evaluation of homogeneity between engineering standards. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required as no primary data are being collected. The results will be made available by peer-reviewed publication and reported according to PRISMA-P guidelines.

Indexed as

OrthopedicsEquipment FailureHumansProstheses and ImplantsQuality ImprovementSystematic Reviews as TopicWounds and Injuriesarthroplastyengineering standardsmedical implant

Identifiers

PMID30341116
PMCPMC6196807

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.