ArticleActa clinica Croatica2023
UNCEMENTED
Article in Acta clinica Croatica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fixation Methods in Primary Hip Arthroplasty: A Nationwide, Registry-Based Observational Study in Romania (2001-2024).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful surgeries. Cemented, uncemented and hybrid methods of implant fixation can be used with different chances for implant survival. There is no consensus on the best fixation method. The aim of the study was to compare the groups of uncemented and hybrid implants according to survival, revision risk and revision cause. Until October 2015, a total of 199 THA uncemented and hybrid (uncemented acetabulum, cemented femur) implants implanted during the 1995-2003 period that had revision or last x-ray taken at least seven years after the initial operation were included in the study. Revision rate, risk factors, revision cause and revised components were investigated. A significant difference was found in the revision rate, i.e., 48 (27.9%) in uncemented group
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.