Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37629436›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

SuperPATH-Current Status of Evidence and Further Investigations: A Scoping Review and Quality Assessment.

Nikolai Ramadanov

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

1 author.

Nikolai RamadanovCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, 14770 Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4669-8187

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuperPATH is a novel minimally invasive technique for hip replacement that is gaining increasing attention. The aim of this review was to determine the nature, extent, and quality of current research evidence on SuperPATH and to identify areas for further investigations.

methodsA bibliometric search was conducted in PubMed up to 1 August 2023 using the search term "SuperPATH". Data extraction and quality assessment were performed for relevant articles.

resultsThe bibliometric search yielded 51 articles on SuperPATH, 9 of which were meta-analyses, 11 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 were prospective non-RCTs, 12 were retrospective comparative studies, 11 were case series, and 4 were other article types. Most articles were published between 2015 and 2023, with a steady increase in publications per year. The articles originated from 13 countries, of which China was the most productive (35%). The quality assessment of the meta-analyses showed that 22.2% were of moderate quality, 66.7% were of low quality, and 11.1% were of critically low quality. The quality assessment of the RCTs showed that 36.4% had a low risk of bias (RoB), 27.2% revealed some concerns, and 36.4% had a high RoB. All studies were evaluated for content and taken into account in the formulation of recommendations and conclusions.

conclusionsThe SuperPATH evidence varies from low to high quality. There is a steady increase in SuperPATH publications in the English-language literature and an uneven distribution of the article origins, with most articles coming from China. Consistent terminology should be used in the future, referring to the surgical approach as the direct superior approach (DSA) and to the surgical technique as SuperPATH. This review provides further concrete suggestions for future investigations and recommendations to improve study quality.

Indexed as

hip replacementscoping reviewSuperPATHsurgical approachtotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID37629436
PMCPMC10455631

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.