ArticleBMJ open2023
Patient and public involvement to inform the protocol of a clinical trial comparing total hip arthroplasty with exercise: an exploratory qualitative case study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04070027 (Progressive Resistance Training Versus Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With End-stage Hip Osteoarthritis), which is not on this 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.
Progressive Resistance Training Versus Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With End-stage Hip Osteoarthritis (PROHIP): A Multicentre, Parallel-group, Randomised Controlled Superiority Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generalizability of the Progressive Resistance Training versus Total Hip Arthroplasty (PROHIP) trial: a cross-sectional study of 402 patients in Denmark.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Trial
- Co-developing preoperative therapy for Dupuytren's fasciectomy: lived experience and clinical expertise.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Training load and pain response during progressive resistance training in patients with hip osteoarthritis in the PROHIP trial.Osteoarthritis and cartilage open · 2025Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore patient, clinician and decision-maker perceptions on a clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with exercise to inform the trial protocol.
designThis is an exploratory qualitative case study using a constructivist paradigm. SETTING AND
participantsParticipants were enrolled into three key stakeholder groups: patients eligible for THA, clinicians, and decision makers. Focus group interviews were conducted in undisturbed conference rooms at two hospitals in Denmark, according to group status using semi-structured interview guides. ANALYSIS: Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematic analysed using an inductive approach.
resultsWe conducted 4 focus group interviews with 14 patients, 1 focus group interview with 4 clinicians (2 orthopaedic surgeons and 2 physiotherapists) and 1 focus group interview with 4 decision-makers. Two main themes were generated. 'Treatment expectations and beliefs impact management choices' covered three supporting codes: Treatment without surgery is unlikely to lead to recovery; Clinician authority impacts the management narrative; The 'surgery vs exercise' debate. 'Factors influencing clinical trial integrity and feasibility' highlighted three supporting codes: Who is considered eligible for surgery?; Facilitators and barriers for surgery and exercise in a clinical trial context; Improvements in hip pain and hip function are the most important outcomes.
conclusionsBased on key stakeholder treatment expectations and beliefs, we implemented three main strategies to improve the methodological rigorousness of our trial protocol. First, we added an observational study investigating the generalisability to address a potential low enrolment rate. Second, we developed an enrolment procedure using generic guidance and balanced narrative conveyed by an independent clinician to facilitate communication of clinical equipoise. Third, we adopted change in hip pain and function as the primary outcome. These findings highlight the value of patient and public involvement in the development of trial protocols to reduce bias in comparative clinical trials evaluating surgical and non-surgical management. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04070027 (pre-results).
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.