SynthesisPloS one2025
Application of artificial intelligence in X-ray imaging analysis for knee arthroplasty: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedics: Current Evidence and Clinical Translation Across the Patient Care Pathway.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is a promising and powerful technology with increasing use in orthopedics. The global morbidity of knee arthroplasty is expanding. This study investigated the use of AI algorithms to review radiographs of knee arthroplasty.
methodsThe Ovid-Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WeiPu (VIP), WanFang, and China Biology Medicine (CBM) databases were systematically screened from inception to March 2024 (PROSPERO study protocol registration: CRD42024507549). The quality assessment of the diagnostic accuracy studies tool assessed the risk of bias.
resultsA total of 21 studies were included in the analysis. Of these, 10 studies identified and classified implant brands, 6 measured implant size and component alignment, 3 detected implant loosening, and 2 diagnosed prosthetic joint infections (PJI). For classifying and identifying implant brands, 5 studies demonstrated near-perfect prediction with an area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.98 to 1.0, and 10 achieved accuracy (ACC) between 96-100%. Regarding implant measurement, one study showed an AUC of 0.62, and two others exhibited over 80% ACC in determining component sizes. Moreover, Artificial intelligence showed good to excellent reliability across all angles in three separate studies (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient > 0.78). In predicting PJI, one study achieved an AUC of 0.91 with a corresponding ACC of 90.5%, while another reported a positive predictive value ranging from 75% to 85%. For detecting implant loosening, the AUC was found to be at least as high as 0.976 with ACC ranging from 85.8% to 97.5%.
conclusionsThese studies show that AI is promising in recognizing implants in knee arthroplasty. Future research should follow a rigorous approach to AI development, with comprehensive and transparent reporting of methods and the creation of open-source software programs and commercial tools that can provide clinicians with objective clinical decisions.
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.