Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33408201›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Choice between implants in knee replacement: protocol for a Bayesian network meta-analysis, analysis of joint registries and economic decision model to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of knee implants for NHS patients-The KNee Implant Prostheses Study (KNIPS).

Elsa M R Marques, Jane Dennis, Andrew D Beswick, Julian Higgins, Howard Thom, Nicky Welton, Amanda Burston, Linda Hunt, Michael R Whitehouse, Ashley W Blom

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Elsa M R MarquesMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1360-5677
Jane DennisMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9718-2653
Andrew D BeswickMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK andy.beswick@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7032-7514
Julian HigginsDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.
Howard ThomDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.
Nicky WeltonDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.
Amanda BurstonMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.
Linda HuntMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.
Michael R WhitehouseMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2436-9024
Ashley W BlomMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0817-20026Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1Medical Research Council MR/P015298/1Medical Research Council MR/R025223/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionKnee replacements are highly successful for many people, but if a knee replacement fails, revision surgery is generally required. Surgeons and patients may choose from a range of implant components and combinations that make up knee replacement constructs, all with potential implications for how long a knee replacement will last. To inform surgeon and patient decisions, a comprehensive synthesis of data from randomised controlled trials is needed to evaluate the effects of different knee replacement implants on overall construct survival. Due to limited follow-up in trials, joint registry analyses are also needed to assess the long-term survival of constructs. Finally, economic modelling can identify cost-effective knee replacement constructs for different patient groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this protocol, we describe systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of knee replacement constructs used in total and unicompartmental knee replacement and analyses of two national joint registries to assess long-term outcomes. Knee replacement constructs are defined by bearing materials and mobility, constraint, fixation and patella resurfacing. For men and women in different age groups, we will compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of knee replacement constructs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Systematic reviews are secondary analyses of published data with no ethical approval required. We will design a common joint registry analysis plan and provide registry representatives with information for submission to research or ethics committees. The project has been assessed by the National Health Service (NHS) REC committee and does not require ethical review.Study findings will be disseminated to clinicians, researchers and administrators through open access articles, presentations and websites. Specific UK-based groups will be informed of results including National Institute for Health Research and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as well as international orthopaedic associations and charities. Effective dissemination to patients will be guided by our patient-public involvement group and include written lay summaries and infographics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019134059 and CRD42019138015.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeState MedicineBayes TheoremCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicRegistriesadult orthopaedicshealth economicskneestatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID33408201
PMCPMC7789438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.