ArticleCureus2024
Local Validation of a National Orthopaedic Registry.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectiveRegistries are limited by the quality of the data they collect. We aimed to measure the data entry error rate at a regional orthopaedic unit in a national arthroplasty registry and to assess a proposed intervention of restricting data entry to senior trainees. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 200 primary and revision arthroplasty cases (119 hips, 81 knees) were randomly selected from a single year, 2020. The Irish National Orthopaedic Registry was examined for the grade of the trainee that populated the form and the accuracy of 24 parameters by comparison with data recorded elsewhere in the patient record.
resultsThe mean number of errors per form was 2.17 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.95-2.39), giving an overall error rate of 9% (95% CI: 8%-10.0%). Eighty-seven percent of forms examined contained inaccuracies, ranging from one to nine errors (4%-38%). Some parameters were more prone to errors, ranging from 1% to 28%. There was no evidence of total errors varying by trainee grade (analysis of variance (ANOVA) p-value: 0.34).
conclusionsError rates were in line with the literature. Results did not support restricting data entry to senior trainees.
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.