ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2023
A cross sectional survey exploring the awareness and familiarity regarding patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) among joint reconstruction surgeons in India.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable state (PASS), minimally detectable change (MDC), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) in patients who have undergone arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of qualitative studies examining barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeon engagement with patient-reported outcome measures data.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical relevance of patient-reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study is to describe the usage of PROM, its use or lack of use, barriers in using it and its future prospect among the arthroplasty surgeons from a developing country like India. Methods: An online survey was conducted by emailing an anonymous questionnaire to orthopaedic surgeons working in three tertiary care academic institutions and two tertiary care private hospitals. All orthopaedic surgeons or residents who have been performing or assisting in arthroplasty and arthroscopy were included in the study. The study was cross-sectional in design based on a single response from all surgeons. Results: The mean age of the 87 surgeons participating in this study was 38.6 ± 4.7 years. 62.1% of surgeons had used PROMs for both clinical as well as research purposes at some point. 25.9% of surgeons had an adequate understanding of the function, benefits, and drawbacks of PROMs. Among the barriers against using PROMs, time constraint was agreed upon by most of the surgeons (59.5%). 64.3% of surgeons were willing to incorporate the PROMs into their daily practice if the barriers are overcome. Conclusion: The limitations of use of PROM should also be borne in mind before embarking on its widespread implementation. Involvement of regulatory and professional societies as well as substantial investment in manpower, money and time is required for making the use of PROMs regular.
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.