SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2022
Biomechanically superior treatments do not translate into improved outcomes in randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The correlation between biomechanical experiments and clinical studies in orthopedics: a systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSignificant time and resources are devoted to conducting orthopaedic biomechanics research; however, it is not known how these studies relate to their subsequent clinical studies. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether biomechanically superior treatments were associated with improved clinical outcomes as determined by analogous randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsA systematic review was conducted to find RCTs that tested a research question based on a prior biomechanical study. PubMed and SCOPUS databases were queried for orthopaedic randomized controlled trials, and full text articles were reviewed to find RCTs which cited biomechanical studies with analogous comparison groups. A random-effects multi-level logistic regression model was conducted examining the association between RCT outcome and biomechanics outcome, adjusting for multiple outcomes nested within study.
resultsIn total, 20,261 articles were reviewed yielding 21 RCTs citing a total of 43 analogous biomechanical studies. In 7 instances (16.2%), the RCT and a cited biomechanical study showed concordant results (i.e. the superior treatment in the RCT was also the superior construct in the biomechanical study). RCT outcome was not associated with biomechanical outcome (β = -1.50, standard error = 0.78, p = .05).
conclusionThis study assessed 21 orthopaedic RCTs with 43 corresponding biomechanical studies and found no association between superior biomechanical properties of a given orthopaedic treatment and improved clinical outcomes. Favourable biomechanical properties alone should not be the primary reason for selecting one treatment over another. Furthermore, RCTs based on biomechanical studies should be carefully designed to maximize the chance of providing clinically relevant insights.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34176011What 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.