Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34909222›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2021

The accuracy and reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction in uncemented versus cemented total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Joshua B V Smith, Habeeb Bishi, Chao Wang, Vipin Asopa, Richard E Field, David H Sochart

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

6 authors.

Joshua B V SmithAcademic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Unit, Epsom, Surrey, UK.
Habeeb BishiAcademic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Unit, Epsom, Surrey, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5754-658X
Chao WangKingston University and St George's University of London, Tooting, London, UK.
Vipin AsopaAcademic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Unit, Epsom, Surrey, UK.
Richard E FieldAcademic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Unit, Epsom, Surrey, UK.
David H SochartAcademic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Unit, Epsom, Surrey, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy and the inter- and intra-observer reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction for the planning of cemented or uncemented THA.This study was registered in the NIHR PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42020216649) and conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search of electronic databases in March 2021 found 29 papers overall. The quality of evidence was assessed using the IHE Quality Appraisal of Case Series Studies Checklist and the CASP Randomised Controlled Trials Checklist. A meta-analysis was conducted, and the accuracy was presented as proportions and the inter- and intra-observer reliability were measured using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).Accuracy within one prosthesis size (±1) for cemented stems was 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.95), cemented cups 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.89), uncemented stems 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.82) and uncemented cups 0.73 (95% CI 0.67-0.79) (test of group differences: p = 0.010). Inter-observer reliability (ICC) for uncemented cups was 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.91), uncemented stems 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91), cemented stems 0.69 (95% CI 0.54-0.84) and cemented cups 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.81) (test of group differences: p = 0.004). Due to lack of data, intra-observer reliability (ICC) could only be calculated for uncemented prostheses, which for the stems was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88-0.92) and for the cups was 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.90) (test of group differences: p = 0.124).The accuracy of preoperative digital templating is greater for cemented prostheses, but the inter-observer reliability is greater for uncemented prostheses. The intra-observer reliability showed a high level of agreement for uncemented prostheses. Cite this article:

Indexed as

accuracycementeddigital templatinghip arthroplastyreliabilityuncemented

Identifiers

PMID34909222
PMCPMC8631246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.