ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Existing and Novel Assessment Methods for Metal Sensitivity in Elective Lower-Limb Arthroplasty-A Scoping Review.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metal-on-metal hip implants: Revisiting degradation product chemistry and molecular mechanisms of ARMD.Biomaterials and biosystems · 2026Review
- Outcomes of Metal Hypersensitivity in Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Fixation of Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis With a Biointegrative Compression Staple.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Metal sensitivity is a possible cause for revision in elective lower-limb arthroplasty. This scoping review aims to identify and evaluate all existing and novel assessment methods for metal sensitivity in elective lower-limb arthroplasty. Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed, and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies published between January 1, 2000, and September 1, 2023. Studies evaluating one or more metal sensitivity assessment method preoperatively, perioperatively, or postoperatively were included. Studies were grouped based on the assessment methods reported and summarized based on the study design, outcome measure, results, and comments on the method's validity. Results: A total of 1220 results were screened, with 39 results (15 retrospective cohort studies, 11 prospective cohort studies, 6 case reports, 5 randomized controlled trials, and 2 case control studies) included, identifying 12 assessment methods. The most used one was patch testing, featuring in 17 studies (43.6%). Lymphocyte transformation assay/testing featured in 12 studies (30.8%). Plasma/serum concentration of metal ions featured in 6 studies (15.4%). Patient history and serum cytokine testing featured in 7 (17.9%) and 4 (10.3%) studies each. Generalized serum inflammatory markers featured in 3 studies (7.7%). The remaining 6 methods each featured in one or 2 studies. Evidence of the reliability of most metrics was limited. Conclusions: Several assessment methods were identified. However, evidence of any methods reliably predicting and diagnosing the occurrence of metal sensitivity was limited. There is a need for improved metrics of metal hypersensitivity.
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.