Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34233885›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2021

Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness: umbrella review of level 1 evidence.

Ashley W Blom, Richard L Donovan, Andrew D Beswick, Michael R Whitehouse, Setor K Kunutsor

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06969625 (Shoulder Anterior Capsular Block Versus Combined Suprascapular and Axillary Nerve Blocks for Postoperative Analgesia in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 81 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

NCT06969625 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Shoulder Anterior Capsular Block Versus Combined Suprascapular and Axillary Nerve Blocks for Postoperative Analgesia in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorZagazig UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled60ConditionsArthroscopic Rotator Cuff RepairArms(SHAC) block, (SSNB-ANB) block
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

81 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. The application of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in preventing periprosthetic joint infection: an umbrella review.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Preserving Patient-Specific Knee Motion: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2025
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Ashley W BlomNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Ashley.Blom@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9940-1095
Richard L DonovanMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Learning & Research Building (Level 1), Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3066-3652
Andrew D BeswickMusculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Learning & Research Building (Level 1), Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7032-7514
Michael R WhitehouseNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2436-9024
Setor K KunutsorNational Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2625-0273

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the clinical effectiveness of common elective orthopaedic procedures compared with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care and assess the impact on clinical guidelines.

designUmbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials or other study designs in the absence of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Ten of the most common elective orthopaedic procedures-arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic meniscal repair of the knee, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy of the knee, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, arthroscopic subacromial decompression, carpal tunnel decompression, lumbar spine decompression, lumbar spine fusion, total hip replacement, and total knee replacement-were studied. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and bibliographies were searched until September 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (or in the absence of meta-analysis other study designs) that compared the clinical effectiveness of any of the 10 orthopaedic procedures with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Summary data were extracted by two independent investigators, and a consensus was reached with the involvement of a third. The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews instrument. The Jadad decision algorithm was used to ascertain which meta-analysis represented the best evidence. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence search was used to check whether recommendations for each procedure reflected the body of evidence.

main outcome measuresQuality and quantity of evidence behind common elective orthopaedic interventions and comparisons with the strength of recommendations in relevant national clinical guidelines.

resultsRandomised controlled trial evidence supports the superiority of carpal tunnel decompression and total knee replacement over non-operative care. No randomised controlled trials specifically compared total hip replacement or meniscal repair with non-operative care. Trial evidence for the other six procedures showed no benefit over non-operative care.

conclusionsAlthough they may be effective overall or in certain subgroups, no strong, high quality evidence base shows that many commonly performed elective orthopaedic procedures are more effective than non-operative alternatives. Despite the lack of strong evidence, some of these procedures are still recommended by national guidelines in certain situations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018115917.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresElective Surgical ProceduresHumansPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34233885
PMCPMC8262448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.