Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37370054›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023

Effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the Netherlands and Germany.

Annet Wijnen, Gesine H Seeber, Günter Dietz, Baukje Dijkstra, Johan S Dekker, Karin M Vermeulen, Geranda E C Slager, Aike Hessel, Djordje Lazovic, Sjoerd K Bulstra and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyControlled Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Annet WijnenDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gesine H SeeberDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Günter DietzClinic for Orthopedic and Rheumatological Rehabilitation, Reha-Zentrum Am Meer Bad Zwischenahn, Bad Zwischenahn, Germany.
Baukje DijkstraDepartment of Orthopedics, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Johan S DekkerDepartment of Orthopedics, Ommelander Ziekenhuis Groningen, Scheemda, The Netherlands.
Karin M VermeulenDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Geranda E C SlagerDepartment of Physical Therapy, School of Health Care Studies, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Aike HesselDeutsche Rentenversicherung Oldenburg, Bremen, Germany.
Djordje LazovicUniversity Hospital for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery Pius-Hospital, Medical Campus University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Sjoerd K BulstraDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Martin StevensDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. m.stevens@umcg.nl.
University of Groningen · NLCarl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg · DEDeutsche Rentenversicherung Bund · DEHanze University of Applied Sciences · NLMedisch Centrum Leeuwarden · NLOrthopädische Praxis · DEUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostoperative rehabilitation after primary total hip arthroplasty (p-THA) differs between the Netherlands and Germany. Aim is to compare clinical effectiveness and to get a first impression of cost effectiveness of Dutch versus German usual care after p-THA.

methodsA transnational prospective controlled observational trial. Clinical effectiveness was assessed with self-reported questionnaires and functional tests. Measurements were taken preoperatively and 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. For cost effectiveness, long-term economic aspects were assessed from a societal perspective.

results124 working-age patients finished the measurements. German usual care leads to a significantly larger proportion (65.6% versus 47.5%) of satisfied patients 12 weeks postoperatively and significantly better self-reported function and Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST) results. German usual care is generally 45% more expensive than Dutch usual care, and 20% more expensive for working-age patients. A scenario analysis assumed that German patients work the same number of hours as the Dutch, and that productivity costs are the same. This analysis revealed German care is still more expensive but the difference decreased to 8%.

conclusionsGerman rehabilitation is clinically advantageous yet more expensive, although comparisons are less straightforward as the socioeconomic context differs between the two countries.

trial registrationThe study is registered in the German Registry of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011345, 18/11/2016).

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNetherlandsPhysical Therapy ModalitiesProspective StudiesQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeCost comparisonEconomic evaluationOrthopedicsOsteoarthritisPatient satisfactionPhysiotherapyRehabilitationTotal hip replacement

Identifiers

PMID37370054
PMCPMC10294515
OpenAlexW4382317776

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.