Editorial: Different, yet strong together: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA).

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Variation in hip replacement rates and surgical workforce across Nordic European countries.International orthopaedics · 2025
   Article
2. Antimicrobial resistance in orthopedics: microbial insights, clinical impact, and the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach-a review.Acta orthopaedica · 2025
   Review
3. Systematisation of the causes that required revision hip replacement, methods of their solution, treatment results in Ukraine.BMC surgery · 2024
   Article
4. What is the most appropriate comparator group to use in assessing the performance of primary total hip prostheses within the community?Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as