Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33362992›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of orthopedics2020

Systematic review of single stage revision for prosthetic joint infection.

Zachary C Lum, Christopher Thomas Holland, John P Meehan

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 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Survivorship and Etiologies of Failure in Single-stage Revision Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Meta-analysis.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Outcomes ofClinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023
    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.

Zachary C LumDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Davis Medical Center, University of California, Sacramento, CA 95817, United States.
Christopher Thomas HollandDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA 95817, United States. ctholland@ucdavis.edu.
John P MeehanDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA 95817, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While advanced technology, increased medical knowledge and improved surgical technique has improved patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty, prosthetic joint infection still remains one of the leading causes of increased healthcare costs, medical resources and societal burdens in orthopaedic care. Two stage arthroplasty revision remains the gold standard for treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Proponents of single stage revision arthroplasty for infection argue that it results in lower healthcare costs while improving patient reported functional outcomes and with equivalent success rates. Here we review the history of single stage revision arthroplasty, discuss the key principles, highlight the indications and contraindications, and review the reported outcomes with a focus on future developments of single stage revision arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections.

Indexed as

InfectionProsthetic joint infectionRevision total joint arthroplastySingle stageTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID33362992
PMCPMC7745489

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.