Trial reportBMJ open2020
What are patients' preferences for revision surgery after periprosthetic joint infection? A discrete choice experiment.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biopsychosocial needs and complementary treatments for patients undergoing management for periprosthetic joint infection following hip or knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.EFORT open reviews · 2026Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Survivorship of the dual-mobility construct in elective primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis including registry data.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Trial
- Cemented versus uncemented fixation of femoral components in 2-stage hip revision arthroplasty to treat periprosthetic joint infection: a cohort study on 94 patients comparing the risks for relapse and reoperation.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Comparison of surgical treatments for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections using the desirability of outcome ranking in a prospective multicentre study.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2025Article
- The top ten benefits of one-stage septic exchange in the management of periprosthetic joint infections.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Dual-mobility implants in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Review
- Managing periprosthetic joint infection-a qualitative analysis of nursing staffs' experiences.BMC nursing · 2022Article
- How long do revised and multiply revised hip replacements last? A retrospective observational study of the National Joint Registry.The Lancet. Rheumatology · 2022Article
- Depression Is Transiently Increased in Patients Undergoing Two-Stage Revision Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- What are healthcare workers' preferences for hand hygiene interventions? A discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2021Article
- How long do revised and multiply revised knee replacements last? An analysis of the National Joint Registry.The Lancet. Rheumatology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesUnderstanding patients' preferences for treatment is crucial to provision of good care and shared decisions, especially when more than one treatment option exists for a given condition. One such condition is infection of the area around the prosthesis after hip replacement, which affects between 0.4% and 3% of patients. There is more than one treatment option for this major complication, and our study aimed to assess the value that patients place on aspects of revision surgery for periprosthetic hip infection.
designWe identified four attributes of revision surgery for periprosthetic hip infection. Using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), we measured the value placed on each attribute by 57 people who had undergone either one-stage or two-stage revision surgery for infection.
settingThe DCE was conducted with participants from nine National Health Service hospitals in the UK.
participantsAdults who had undergone revision surgery for periprosthetic hip infection (N=57).
resultsOverall, the strongest preference was for a surgical option that resulted in no restrictions on engaging in valued activities after a new hip is fitted (β=0.7). Less valued but still important attributes included a shorter time taken from the start of treatment to return to normal activities (6 months; β=0.3), few or no side effects from antibiotics (β=0.2), and having only one operation (β=0.2).
conclusionsThe results highlight that people who have had revision surgery for periprosthetic hip infection most value aspects of care that affect their ability to engage in normal everyday activities. These were the most important characteristics in decisions about revision surgery.
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.