Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31966964›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of orthopedics2020

Patents and intellectual property in orthopaedics and arthroplasty.

Chika Edward Uzoigwe, Ahmed Shoaib

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of orthopedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A call for inclusion of arthroplasty as essential surgery.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Chika Edward UzoigweDepartment of Medicine, Harcourt House, Sheffield S10 1DG, United Kingdom. chika@doctors.org.uk.
Ahmed ShoaibDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, Huddersfield HD3 3EA, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The provision of musculoskeletal services comes at a cost. This is, in part, due to the expense of patent-protected orthopaedic implants. However, patents have a finite lifespan. Patents of the most successful implants are now beginning to expire. They will be exposed to competition from generic but equivalent implants. The net effect is potentially a dramatic diminution in cost. One company, Orthimo, has taken advantage of this and begun manufacturing generic implants with identical design specifications to the most bio-durable hip prostheses. This will ultimately have a radical impact upon musculoskeletal healthcare provision with regard to cost and accessibility. The expiration of drug patents, with the subsequent use of generic drugs saves £7.1 billion annually in the United Kingdom and $254 billion in the USA. Estimates suggest the introduction of equivalent implants could result in an annual cost saving to the United Kingdom National Health Service of £120 million. Intellectual property remains an enigmatic area of law. It encompasses anodyne principles that seek to protect innovation but are open to manipulation and exploitation. The last decade has seen the emergence of undesirable practices in the medical industry such as "patent trolling". Here we explore patents and their repercussions for musculoskeletal care.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyHealth care costsImplant approvalIntellectual propertyPatentPatent trolling

Identifiers

PMID31966964
PMCPMC6960299

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.