ReviewBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
The usage of drainage after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty: best evidence selection and risk of bias considerations.
Review in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Periprosthetic joint infection after arthroplasty: advances and future prospects.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Review
- Nalbuphine versus morphine: an adjuvant to spinal anesthesia for controlling pain after total knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- The past and future of peri-operative interventions to reduce arthrogenic quadriceps muscle inhibition after total knee arthroplasty: A narrative review.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2024Review
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous systematic reviews investigating the benefit of the usage of drainage after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty have been published with divergent conclusions. We aim to determine the best available evidence and consider risk of bias of these articles and to provide recommendations.
methodsA systematic search of systematic reviews published through to May 2020 was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Methodological quality, risk of bias and best evidence choice of included articles were evaluated by AMSTAR instrument, ROBIS tool and Jadad decision algorithm, respectively. We selected systematic reviews with high methodological quality and low risk of bias ultimately as best evidence.
resultsTwelve meta-analyses were included lastly. According to the ROBIS tool, seven of the included systematic reviews were with low risk of bias and five with high risk of bias. The Jadad decision algorithm suggested that two reviews conducted by Zan et al. for hip and Si et al. et al. for knee were selected as the best evidence, with highest AMSTAR score and low risk of bias.
conclusionsTen systematic reviews were included as low-quality with only two high-quality studies. Based on the current available evidence, we have insufficient confidence to draw conclusion that whether to use closed suction drainage for both total knee and hip arthroplasty. To verify the necessity and benefit of using closed suction drainage after primary total knee and hip arthroplasty, and develop exact recommendations, further studies are still required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.