ReviewArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022
Outcome measures in total hip arthroplasty: have our metrics changed over 15 years?
Review in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction of a conceptual model and preliminary content development for patient-reported outcomes measurement after total hip arthroplasty: from a Chinese perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Changes Over a Decade in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Minimal Clinically Important Difference Reporting in Total Joint Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Association of global sagittal spinal deformity with functional disability two years after total hip arthroplasty.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConsensus has not been reached regarding ideal outcome measures for total hip arthroplasty (THA) clinical evaluation and research. The goal of this review was to analyze the trends in outcome metrics within the THA literature and to discuss the potential impact of instrument heterogeneity on clinical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsA PubMed search of all manuscripts related to THA from January 2005 to December 2019 was performed. Statistical and linear regression analyses were performed for individual outcome metrics as a proportion of total THA publications over time.
resultsThere was a statistically significant increase in studies utilizing outcomes metrics between 2005 and 2019 (15.1-29.5%; P < 0.001; R
conclusionsThe utilization of outcome-reporting metrics in THA has continued to increase, resulting in added complexity within the literature. The utilization rates of individual instruments have shifted over the past 15 years. Additional study is required to determine which specific instruments are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33570664What 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.