Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31286051›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty today2019

Arthroplasty studies with greater than 1000 participants: analysis of follow-up methods.

Muhammad B Tariq, José F Vega, Robert Westermann, Morgan Jones, Kurt P Spindler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroplasty today, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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.

Muhammad B TariqCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
José F VegaCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Robert WestermannDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Health, Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Morgan JonesDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Health, Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Kurt P SpindlerDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Health, Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

Prognosis and Predictors of ACL Reconstruction: A Multicenter Cohort StudyR01AR053684 · NIAMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI SPINDLER, KURT PAUL · 2006 to 2020
$8.3M
Meniscus status and activity level after ACLK23AR066133 · NIAMS · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI JONES, MORGAN HERANCOURT · 2015 to 2019
$745k
NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR066133NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR053684
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has become a mainstay of orthopedic joint arthroplasty research. Large studies with >1000 participants are vital to orthopedic research, as they allow for comprehensive multivariable analysis. Achieving high follow-up rates minimizes potential response bias. Maintaining adequate follow-up rates becomes more challenging as sample size increases. We aimed to systematically review the present literature to determine the follow-up rates of large cohorts/registries of total joint arthroplasty patients and to identify factors associated with successful collection of PROMs.

methodsA comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were: ≥1000 participants, ≥6 months of postoperative follow-up, and use of validated PROMs postoperatively.

resultsOf 720 abstracts screened, 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Only 2 studies reported achieving a PROM follow-up rate ≥80%, but neither collected PROMs preoperatively. The median rate of follow-up was 70%, and the median number of patients was 2970. Only 38% (8 of 21) of studies collected baseline PROMs prior to surgery.

conclusionsVery few studies in the present literature have collected validated PROMs on ≥1000 patients with ≥80% follow-up; these parameters are conducive to comprehensive multivariable analysis, while maintaining study validity and avoiding follow-up bias. Federal funding and a central coordinating site may be helpful in achieving follow-up in studies of this magnitude. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of studies with Level of Evidence I-III.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyHipKneePatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID31286051
PMCPMC6588815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.