Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35360676›Full record

ArticleArthroplasty today2022

Patient Interest in Robotic Total Joint Arthroplasty Is Exponential: A 10-Year Google Trends Analysis.

Joseph C Brinkman, Zachary K Christopher, M Lane Moore, Jordan R Pollock, Jack M Haglin, Joshua S Bingham

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arthroplasty today, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Continuous outcomes of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty trials are statistically fragile.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Ultrasonic tool to cut human bone: Cutting speed and forces necessary for potential remote robotic arms.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph C BrinkmanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Zachary K ChristopherDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
M Lane MooreMayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Jordan R PollockMayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Jack M HaglinDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Joshua S BinghamDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Mayo Clinic Hospital · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The use of robotics in arthroplasty continues to increase. Patient demand, patient expectations, and patient-directed marketing by industry and care providers each likely contributes to its increasing popularity. Trends in patient interest have not been well described. We used the online Google Trends tool to analyze trends in national public interest toward robotic and nonrobotic arthroplasty between 2011 and 2021. Material and methods: Google Trends online was queried for search terms related to nonrobotic hip and knee arthroplasty in addition to robotic hip, robotic knee, and general robotic arthroplasty between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021. Results: Google Trends Data demonstrated a significant linear increase in online searches related to nonrobotic total knee and hip arthroplasty. Online search volume for robotic hip arthroplasty was significant and linear, while that of robotic knee arthroplasty was significant and exponential. When combined, robotic joint arthroplasty demonstrated an exponential trend over the 10-year period. This increase was noted to be statistically significant when compared with nonrobotic arthroplasty search volume. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that public interest in robotic total joint arthroplasty has increased significantly from 2011 through 2020. When compared with online search volume for conventional arthroplasty, this increasing growth is statistically significant. Public interest in robotic arthroplasty is anticipated to continue to increase, and care providers should be aware of this trend that impacts patient perceptions and expectations. Despite significant growth in interest for robotic arthroplasty, there is incomplete evidence supporting its use over nonrobotic arthroplasty. Additional high-quality studies are needed to inform provider decision-making and appropriately guide public interest in robot-assisted arthroplasty.

Indexed as

Computer-assistedNational trendsNavigationRobotic arthroplastyRobotics

Identifiers

PMID35360676
PMCPMC8961076
OpenAlexW4221131339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.