SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
The correlation between biomechanical experiments and clinical studies in orthopedics: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the clinical relevance of biomechanical experiments by conducting a systematic review of orthopedic studies that compared treatments with both a biomechanical experiment and a clinical study.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE/PUBMED was performed to identify orthopedic studies that included both a biomechanical experiment and a clinical study to compare treatments. The association between a difference in the outcome of the biomechanical experiment and a difference in the outcome of the clinical study was evaluated.
resultsThere were 23 studies that were included. The orthopedic specialty of the studies included trauma (n = 17), pediatric trauma (n = 2), sports (n = 2), and hand (n = 1). The anatomic areas of each study included the hip/femur (n = 11), shoulder/humerus (n = 3), elbow/forearm (n = 2), knee/tibia (n = 3), ankle/foot (n = 2), pelvis/acetabulum (n = 1), and hand (n = 1). The biomechanical experiments involved cadavers (n = 14), synthetic bone (n = 5), finite element analysis (n = 3), and animals (n = 1). The biomechanical experiment from each study, compared to the clinical study, was more likely to report a difference in outcomes (82.6% (19/23) vs. 30.4% (7/23), p = 0.0008). The findings of the biomechanical experiment and the clinical study were in agreement in 43.4% (10/23) of the studies. Studies that reported a difference in the biomechanical outcome, compared to those that did not, were not more likely to report a difference in the clinical outcome (31.6% (6/19) vs. 25.0% (1/3), p = 1.0).
conclusionsThe outcomes of biomechanical experiments did not correlate with clinical study outcomes. Considering these findings, the utility of biomechanical experiments in orthopedics should be reexamined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40327183What 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.