ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2022
External validation of the Tyrolean hip arthroplasty registry.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05734651 (Prospective Evaluation of the PROMIS Stem for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty), which is not on this 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.
Prospective Evaluation of the PROMIS Stem for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Manitoba Joint Replacement Registry: validation of a provincial hip and knee arthroplasty registry.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Hip arthroscopy with initial access to the peripheral compartment for femoroacetabular impingement: midterm results from a large-scale patient cohort.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024Article
- Local Validation of a National Orthopaedic Registry.Cureus · 2024Article
- Young or Old Age and Non-White Race Are Associated With Poor Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Response Compliance After Orthopaedic Surgery.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeArthroplasty registries gained increasing importance to the re-certification of orthopaedic implants according to the European Union (EU) Medical Device Regulation (MDR) adopted in 2017. Until recently, several European countries only had regional arthroplasty registries. Whether regional registries deliver data quality comparable with national registries remained unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to validate the Austrian Tyrolean Hip Arthroplasty Registry (THAR) and to evaluate if this regional registry showed adequate adherence, completeness and correctness when compared with well-established national registries.
methodsA consecutive series of 1100 primary total hip arthroplasties were identified from our institution's medical database. Patients were interviewed by phone and completed questionnaires after a mean follow-up period of 8.05 years and were asked if they had had revision surgeries. The data were compared to the corresponding dataset from the THAR.
resultsAdherence was 97.91% for primary total hip arthroplasty. Clinical follow-up identified 10 missing cases, resulting in adherence of 81.48% for revisions. Completeness of patient-reported outcome measurements was 78.55% before surgery and 84.45% 1 year after surgery. Correctness was 99.7% for demographic data, 99.54% for implant specifications, and 99.35% for mode of fixation.
conclusionThe data of this study showed that regional arthroplasty registries can deliver data quality comparable with well-established national registries. The main reason for unrecorded revision cases and wrongly recoded implants was human error. Further digitalization with more automatic data submission may have the potential to reduce these failure rates in the future. Overall, the THAR represents a valid data source for re-certification of medical implants according to the EU's MDR.
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.