ReviewEFORT open reviews2023
Identification of implant outliers in joint replacement registries.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a minimum data set for total joint arthroplasty registries.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Assessing the value for money of a registry: an exploratory analysis of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Frequency of safety signals from scientific reports, manufactures, registers, and other sources for a random selection of hip and knee prostheses.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Cumulative risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty in registries internationally: systematic review and meta-analysis of selected hip stems and cups.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Pooling data for primary total knee implants across national registries: is the same implant used in multiple registries and for the same patient group? An observational study.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Observational
- Arthroplasty registries at a glance: an initiative of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) to facilitate access, understanding, and reporting of registry data from an international perspective.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Safety notices and registry outlier data measure different aspects of safety and performance of total knee implants: a comparative study of safety notices and register outliers.Acta orthopaedica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent concerns surrounding joint replacements that have a higher than expected rate of revision have led to stricter controls by regulatory authorities with regards to the introduction of new devices into the marketplace. Implant post-market surveillance remains important, and joint replacement registries are ideally placed to perform this role. This review examined if and how joint replacement registries identified outlier prostheses, outlined problems and suggested solutions to improve post-market surveillance. A search was performed of all joint replacement registries that had electronic or published reports detailing the outcomes of joint replacement. These reports were examined for registry identification of outlier prostheses. Five registries publicly identified outlier prostheses in their reports and the methods by which this was performed, and three others had internal reports. Identification of outlier prostheses is one area that may improve overall joint replacement outcomes; however, further research is needed to determine the optimum methods for identification, including the threshold, the comparator and the numbers required for notification of devices. Co-operation of registries at a global level may lead to earlier identification of devices and thereby further improve the results of joint replacement.
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.