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.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical application of artificial intelligence-assisted three-dimensional planning in direct anterior approach hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2024Trial
- Acetabular cup-native femoral head size discrepancy in primary total hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis on intraoperative sizing verification.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Comparative Analysis and Accuracy of Surgeon- and Prosthesis Manufacturer-Generated Radiographic Templates in Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Accuracy of digital templating for total hip arthroplasty: android smartphone and tablet computer versus commercial templating software.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2025Article
- AI-assisted 3D versus conventional 2D preoperative planning in total hip arthroplasty for Crowe type II-IV high hip dislocation: a two-year retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of Radiographic Measurement Templates for Standardized X-ray Analysis.Cureus · 2025Article
- Planning Accuracy and Stem Offset Assessment in Digital Two-Dimensional Versus Three-Dimensional Planning in Cementless Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Does two dimensional templating allow for the use of reduced-size ancillaries in total hip arthroplasty?International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Accuracy of two-dimensional digital planning in uncemented primary hip arthroplasty: monocentric analysis of eight hundred implants.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Surgeon's Experience and Accuracy of Preoperative Digital Templating in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.Hip & pelvis · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence-based three-dimensional templating for total joint arthroplasty planning: a scoping review.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Accuracy of Preoperative 3D vs 2D Digital Templating for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Direct Anterior Approach.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Bi-planar calibration method for templating of hip joint arthroplasty: phantom study and proof of concept.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- A novel bi-planar calibration method for digital templating in total hip arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Effect of digital navigation during anterior-approach total hip arthroplasty on patient outcomes.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
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
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
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.