ArticleInternational orthopaedics2021
Institutional arthroplasty registry: what is the minimum acceptable dataset to be included in your hospital? Recommendations from a single-country national consensus using the Delphi method.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a minimum data set for total joint arthroplasty registries.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInstitutional arthroplasty registries are very popular nowadays; however, very few efforts have been made in order to standardize the information to be collected, thus limiting the possibility of inter-institutional data interpretation. This manuscript reports the results of a single-country consensus designed to define the minimum standardized dataset to be recorded within an institutional arthroplasty registry.
methodsA national consensus was carried out among all members of the Colombian Society of Hip and Knee Surgeons using the Delphi method. Eleven questions and answers comprising every potential domain of an institutional registry of hip and knee arthroplasty were defined. According to the methodology, anonymous voting and multiple discussion rounds were performed. Three levels of agreement were defined: Strong consensus: equal to or greater than 80%, weak consensus between 70 and 79.9%, and no consensus below 70%.
resultsAll of the questions reached consensus level. The minimum dataset was defined to include demographic and clinical information, intraoperative and implant details, follow-up and early complications, implant survival, and functional outcome scores, as well as the validation model to assess information quality within the database. Currently, this dataset is being implemented voluntarily by the members of our national society. DISCUSSION: A national consensus is a feasible method to build homogeneous arthroplasty registries. We recommend such an exercise since it establishes the basis to compare and add data between institutions and the joint analysis of said information in a national registry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33191451What 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.