ArticleBone & joint open2022
The accuracy of reporting of periprosthetic joint infection to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence of periprosthetic joint infection after primary total hip arthroplasty is underestimated: a synthesis of meta-analysis and bibliometric analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- Technical Feasibility of a Multimodal Electro-Optical and Infrared Imaging Pipeline for Postoperative Wound Assessment After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Formative Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- The association between laminar vs turbulent airflow and prosthetic hip joint infections: a prospective nationwide study from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty With or Without Antibiotic Bone Cement.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Epidemiology of revision hip replacement surgery in the UK over the past 15 years-an analysis from the National Joint Registry.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Design Characteristics and Recruitment Rates for Randomized Trials of Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection Management: A Systematic Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- The Intraoperative Use of Defensive Antibacterial Coating (DACMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Description of surgical treatment methods of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections in the Chinese mainland: a national multi-centre survey.International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Local Antibiotic Delivery Options in Prosthetic Joint Infection.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Antibiotic utilisation in primary and revision total hip replacement patients: A registry linkage cohort study of 106 253 patients using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2023Article
- Implementing large-scale data quality validation in a national arthroplasty registry to improve compliance : the National Joint Registry data quality audit programme.Bone & joint open · 2022Article
- Review
- Antibiotic-Loaded Bone Cement and Risk of Infection After Knee Arthroplasty in High-Risk Patients: A Register Based Meta-Analysis.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsNational joint registries under-report revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to validate PJI reporting to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) and the factors associated with its accuracy. We then applied these data to refine estimates of the total national burden of PJI.
methodsA total of 561 Australian cases of confirmed PJI were captured by a large, prospective observational study, and matched to data available for the same patients through the AOANJRR.
resultsIn all, 501 (89.3%) cases of PJI recruited to the prospective observational study were successfully matched with the AOANJRR database. Of these, 376 (75.0%) were captured by the registry, while 125 (25.0%) did not have a revision or reoperation for PJI recorded. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, early (within 30 days of implantation) PJIs were less likely to be reported (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.93; p = 0.020), while two-stage revision procedures were more likely to be reported as a PJI to the registry (OR 5.3 (95% CI 2.37 to 14.0); p ≤ 0.001) than debridement and implant retention or other surgical procedures. Based on this data, the true estimate of the incidence of PJI in Australia is up to 3,900 cases per year.
conclusionIn Australia, infection was not recorded as the indication for revision or reoperation in one-quarter of those with confirmed PJI. This is better than in other registries, but suggests that registry-captured estimates of the total national burden of PJI are underestimated by at least one-third. Inconsistent PJI reporting is multifactorial but could be improved by developing a nested PJI registry embedded within the national arthroplasty registry. 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.