ArticleBMJ open2019
Validation of adverse events after hip arthroplasty: a Swedish multi-centre cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Predictive values of trigger tools for identifying adverse events in hospitalized patients using a medical record review: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025Pooled it
- Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Timing and Frequency of Adverse Events Within 90 Days of Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Validating adverse events in administrative healthcare data in ireland: a retrospective chart review study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Reduced periprosthetic fracture rate for a cemented anatomical versus a tapered polished stem in hip arthroplasty: A 6-year follow-up of a prospective observational cohort study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024Article
- Article
- Only 8% of major preventable adverse events after hip arthroplasty are filed as claims: a Swedish multi-center cohort study on 1,998 patients.Acta orthopaedica · 2020Article
- Measuring adverse events following hip arthroplasty surgery using administrative data without relying on ICD-codes.PloS one · 2020Article
- Standard Elements in Studies of Adverse Events and Medical Error (SESAME): explanation and elaboration.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPreventing adverse events (AEs) after orthopaedic surgery is a field with great room for improvement. A Swedish instrument for measuring AEs after hip arthroplasty based on administrative data from the national patient register is used by both the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. It has never been validated and its accuracy is unknown. The aim of this study was to validate the instrument's ability to detect AEs, and to calculate the incidence of AEs following primary hip arthroplasties.
designRetrospective cohort study using retrospective record review with Global Trigger Tool methodology in combination with register data.
setting24 different hospitals in four major regions of Sweden.
participants2000 patients with either total or hemi-hip arthroplasty were recruited from the SHAR. We included both acute and elective patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity and specificity of the instrument. Adjusted cumulative incidence and incidence rate.
resultsThe sensitivity for all identified AEs was 5.7% (95% CI: 4.9% to 6.7%) for 30 days and 14.8% (95% CI: 8.2 to 24.3) for 90 days, and the specificity was 95.2% (95% CI: 93.5% to 96.6%) for 30 days and 92.1% (95% CI: 89.9% to 93.8%) for 90 days. The adjusted cumulative incidence for all AEs was 28.4% (95% CI: 25.0% to 32.3%) for 30 days and 29.5% (95% CI: 26.0% to 33.8%) for 90 days. The incidence rate was 0.43 AEs per person-month (95% CI: 0.39 to 0.47).
conclusionsThe AE incidence was high, and most AEs occurred within the first 30 days. The instrument sensitivity for AEs was very low for both 30 and 90 days, but the specificity was high for both 30 and 90 days. The studied instrument is insufficient for valid measurements of AEs after hip arthroplasty.
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.