Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31777830›Full record

ArticleACR open rheumatology2019

Osteoarthritis in England: Incidence Trends From National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics.

O J Morgan, H J Hillstrom, S J Ellis, Y M Golightly, R Russell, M T Hannan, J T Deland, R Hillstrom

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Research priority setting in UK podiatric surgery.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

O J MorganAnglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1563-3017
H J HillstromHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
S J EllisHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Y M GolightlyUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
R RussellMid-Essex Hospitals Trust, Chelmsford, Essex, UK.
M T HannanMarcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9586-6928
J T DelandHospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
R HillstromAnglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, Essex, UK.
Hospital for Special Surgery · USAnglia Ruskin University · GBHarvard University · USMid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust · GBUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIt is typical in epidemiological research of osteoarthritis (OA) to collect data for the hand, hip, and knee. However, little population-based data exist for this disease in the foot. Thus, we addressed patterns of OA for the foot compared with the hand, hip, and knee spanning 2000/2001 to 2017/2018 in England.

methodsSecondary-care data from 3 143 928 patients with OA of the foot, hand, hip, and knee were derived from the National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Distribution, population prevalence, and incidence of joint-specific OA were stratified by age and sex.

resultsOA incidence increased significantly at the foot [3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0, 4.6)], hand [10.9% (10.1, 11.7)], hip [3.8% (2.9, 4.7)], and knee [2.9% (2.2, 3.6)] per year from 2000/2001 to 2017/2018. A higher proportion of women were diagnosed with OA, whereas greater incidence in men was estimated for the hand and hip. Foot OA presented comparable diagnosis numbers to the hand. More recently during 2012/2013 to 2017/2018, a significant rise in hip OA was estimated among younger adults, whereas knee OA decreased across all age groups. Incidence of OA in the foot and hand were particularly significant among the 75 or older age group, though bimodal age distributions were observed for both sites.

conclusionThe significant increase in secondary care records for OA in England underscores the importance of exploring possible causative factors and identifying groups most at risk. Further detailed data may be particularly important for the hip, which represents significant incidence among younger adults. Greater incidence of OA in the foot compared with the knee emphasizes the need for well-conducted epidemiological research in this area. Monitoring the performance of surgical outcomes at the population-level for this frequently affected yet understudied site could have substantial potential to reduce the socioeconomic burden it represents to the NHS.

Identifiers

PMID31777830
PMCPMC6858070
OpenAlexW2969855692

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.