ReviewArthroplasty (London, England)2023
Defining a successful total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of metrics of clinically important changes.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Telerehabilitation intervention after total knee arthroplasty in Iran: a feasibility and acceptability randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2026Trial
- Prevalence and impact of preoperative osteoporosis on healthcare utilization and patient-reported outcomes in primary total knee arthroplasty.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Pediatric lower extremity fracture treatments: a statistical review of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Variations in quantifying patient reported outcome measures to estimate treatment effect.World journal of methodology · 2025Review
- International, consensus-based, indications and treatment options for knee arthroplasty in acute fractures around the knee.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Review
- Time Required to Achieve Clinically Significant Outcomes After Anteroinferior Arthroscopic Capsular Release for Shoulder Adhesive Capsulitis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds for IKDC-SKF and KOOS at the 10-Year Follow-up After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Study From the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in patients who have undergone total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.Knee surgery & related research · 2024Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.