SynthesisMusculoskeletal surgery2023
Cementless versus cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative studies.
Synthesis in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Demographics and outcomes of unicondylar knee arthroplasty in Türkiye: a nationwide retrospective database study of eight thousand, five hundred and ninety cases.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of revision causes between robotic-assisted and conventional manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery & related research · 2026Review
- Novel Clinical Applications of 3D-Printed Highly Porous Titanium for Off-the-Shelf Cementless Joint Replacement Prostheses.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Long-term outcomes of a 3D printed cementless fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is safe and effective at a minimum follow-up of 4.2 years: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are still some controversies regarding the clinical use of cementless UKAs. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether cementless medial UKA leads to similar outcomes compared to cemented medial UKA. This search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines (PRISMA). The random effects model with 95% confidence interval (CI) was applied to the analysis. The I
Indexed as
Identifiers
36689086What 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.