Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37198708›Full record

ReviewArthroplasty (London, England)2023

Defining a successful total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of metrics of clinically important changes.

Zodina A Beiene, Kira K Tanghe, Cynthia A Kahlenberg, Alexander S McLawhorn, Catherine H MacLean, Elizabeth B Gausden

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arthroplasty (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zodina A BeieneDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. zodinabeiene@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7458-6775
Kira K TangheAlbert Einstein Medical College, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA.
Cynthia A KahlenbergDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Alexander S McLawhornDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Catherine H MacLeanCenter for the Advancement of Value in Musculoskeletal Care, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Elizabeth B GausdenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Hospital for Special Surgery · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USJohns Hopkins Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the increasing use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the methodology used to evaluate clinically significant postoperative outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is variable. The review aimed to survey studies with identified PROM-based metrics of clinical efficacy and the assessment procedures after TKA.

methodsThe MEDLINE database was queried from 2008-2020. Inclusion criteria were: full texts, English language, primary TKA with minimum one-year follow-up, use of metrics for assessing clinical outcomes with PROMs, and primary derivations of metrics. The following PROM-based metrics were identified: minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimum detectable change (MDC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB). Study design, PROM value data, and methods of derivation for metrics were recorded.

resultsWe identified 18 studies (including 46,173 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. Across these studies, 10 different PROMs were employed, and MCID was derived in 15 studies (83%). The MCID was calculated using anchor-based techniques in nine studies (50%) and distribution techniques in eight studies (44%). PASS values were presented in two studies (11%) and SCB in one study (6%) using an anchor-based method; MDC was derived in four studies (22%) using the distribution method.

conclusionThere is variability in the TKA literature with respect to the definition and derivation of measurements of clinically significant outcomes. Standardization of these values may have implications for optimal case selection and PROM-based quality measurement, ultimately improving patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Indexed as

Minimal clinically important differencePatient acceptable symptom statePatient-reported outcome measureTotal knee arthroplastyTotal knee replacement

Identifiers

PMID37198708
PMCPMC10193600
OpenAlexW4376866477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.