ReviewEFORT open reviews2019
Generic implant classification enables comparison across implant designs: the Dutch Arthroplasty Register implant library.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality and Utility of European Cardiovascular and Orthopaedic Registries for the Regulatory Evaluation of Medical Device Safety and Performance Across the Implant Lifecycle: A Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2023Pooled it
- The long-term revision risk of RSA-tested and non-RSA-tested TKA implants in The Netherlands: a Dutch arthroplasty register study.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Developing a Classification of Spinal Medical Devices: Has the Time Come? Review of the Literature and a Proposal for Spine Registries.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), the product and batch number of prosthetic components and cement are registered for traceability. Registration of the product number provides opportunities to extend the information about a specific prosthesis. All product numbers used from the beginning of the registration in 2007 were characterized to develop and maintain an implant library.The Scientific Advisory Board developed a core-set that contains the most important characteristics needed to form an implant library. The final core-set contains the brand name, type, coating and material of the prosthesis. In total, 35 676 product numbers were classified, resulting in a complete implant library of all product numbers used in the LROI.To improve quality of the data and increase convenience of registration, the LROI implemented barcode scanning for data entry into the database. In 2017, 82% of prosthetic components and cement stickers had a GS1 barcode. The remaining product stickers used HIBCC barcodes and custom-made barcodes.With this implant library, implants can be grouped for analyses at group level, e.g. evaluation of the effect of a material of a prosthesis on survival of the implant. Apart from that, the implant library can be used for data quality control within the LROI database.The implant library reduces the registration burden and increases accuracy of the database. Such a system will facilitate new designs (learning from the past) and thus improve implant quality and ultimately patient safety. 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.