ReviewOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2021
The state of trial registrations in the field of Orthopaedics in years 2015-2020. A meta-epidemiological study.
Review in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protocol publication rate and comparison between article, registry and protocol in RCTs.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Article
- Is posterior knee arthroscopy using posterior portals necessary for orthopedic surgeons? The latest evidence on applications and techniques.EFORT open reviews · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the extent and trends in registration of Orthopaedic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) between 2015 and 2020. Design: Epidemiological study. Primary publications of RCTs published in top Orthopaedic journals (ISI Journal Citation Reports 2019 rankings) between 2015 and 2020 were included in this meta-epidemiological study with no restrictions on patient population, intervention/control groups or outcome type. Independent reviewers in pairs were involved in RCT selection and data extraction. The proportion of RCTs published that were registered (prospectively or retrospectively) or not registered were reported using counts and percentages stratified by years for each journal. Results: A total of 474 primary RCTs were considered eligible. We identified 157 out of 474 RCTs (33% of RCTs across journals) that were reported to have been registered prospectively.The proportion of prospective RCT registrations had increased by 40% (10%-50%) between 2015 and 2020. On the other hand, the proportion of RCTs with no registrations were reduced by 29% (50%-21%) between 2015 and 2020. Conclusion: Prospective RCT registration in the past 5 years in the field of orthopaedic has increased, but 2/3 of published RCTs still failed to report prospective registration.
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.