Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37295832›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial (RACER-knee): a study protocol.

James Griffin, Edward T Davis, Helen Parsons, Elke Gemperle Mannion, Chetan Khatri, David R Ellard, Mark J Blyth, Nicholas David Clement, David Deehan, Nicholas Flynn and 13 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Current trends in shoulder arthroplasty - Are the trends backed by evidence?Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

James GriffinWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK James.Griffin@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6364-0414
Edward T DavisRoyal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Helen ParsonsWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2765-3728
Elke Gemperle MannionWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Chetan KhatriWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3961-1314
David R EllardWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2992-048X
Mark J BlythOrthopaedic Research Unit, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Nicholas David ClementOrthopaedics and Trauma, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8792-0659
David DeehanNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Nicholas FlynnPortsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Josephine FoxPatient Representative, Coventry, UK.
Nicholas J GrantPatient Representative, Coventry, UK.
Fares S HaddadUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Charles E HutchinsonUniversity Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK.
James MasonWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Bishal MohindruWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Chloe E H ScottDepartment of Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0012-1596
Toby O SmithWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1673-2954
John A SkinnerRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, Stanmore, UK.
Andrew D TomsRoyal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
Sophie ReesBristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4399-2049
Martin UnderwoodWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0309-1708
Andrew MetcalfeWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4515-8202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotic-assisted knee replacement systems have been introduced to healthcare services worldwide in an effort to improve clinical outcomes for people, although high-quality evidence that they are clinically, or cost-effective remains sparse. Robotic-arm systems may improve surgical accuracy and could contribute to reduced pain, improved function and lower overall cost of total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. However, TKR with conventional instruments may be just as effective and may be quicker and cheaper. There is a need for a robust evaluation of this technology, including cost-effectiveness analyses using both within-trial and modelling approaches. This trial will compare robotic-assisted against conventional TKR to provide high-quality evidence on whether robotic-assisted knee replacement is beneficial to patients and cost-effective for healthcare systems. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial-Knee is a multicentre, participant-assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted TKR compared with TKR using conventional instruments. A total of 332 participants will be randomised (1:1) to provide 90% power for a 12-point difference in the primary outcome measure; the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months postrandomisation. Allocation concealment will be achieved using computer-based randomisation performed on the day of surgery and methods for blinding will include sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will be reported in line with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. A parallel study will collect data on the learning effects associated with robotic-arm systems. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by an ethics committee for patient participation (East Midlands-Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee, 29 July 2020. NRES number: 20/EM/0159). All results from the study will be disseminated using peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences, lay summaries and social media as appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27624068.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeRobotic Surgical ProceduresCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansKnee JointMulticenter Studies as TopicPainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcomeadult orthopaedicsadult surgerykneeorthopaedic & trauma surgery

Identifiers

PMID37295832
PMCPMC10277111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.