Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31934332›Full record

ArticleBone & joint research2019

Cemented versus uncemented hip implant fixation: Should there be age thresholds?

Sujith Konan, Matthew P Abdel, Fares S Haddad

Open access · goldAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Long-term outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Balancing Safety and Efficacy: Uncemented Versus Cemented Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Elderly.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sujith KonanUniversity College Hospital and The Princess Grace Hospital, London, UK.
Matthew P AbdelDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Fares S HaddadUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, The Princess Grace Hospital, and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at UCL H, London, UK.
Mayo Clinic · USThe Princess Grace Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is continued debate as to whether cemented or cementless implants should be utilized in particular cases based upon chronological age. This debate has been rekindled in the UK and other countries by directives mandating certain forms of acetabular and femoral component fixation based exclusively on the chronological age of the patient. This editorial focuses on the literature-based arguments to support the use of cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA), while addressing potential concerns surrounding safety and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

CementedCementlessTotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID31934332
PMCPMC6946910
OpenAlexW2996536047

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.