ReviewJB & JS open access
Health Equity Research in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Needs Assessment.
Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- After ACL Injury in Children and Adolescents, Where in the Preoperative Timeline do Disparities in Timing and Clinical Course Originate?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2026Article
- Which Neighborhood-level Metric Is Most Appropriate for Pediatric Sports Medicine Disparities Research?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2026Article
- Silenced by design: epistemic injustice and older women's experiences in total hip replacement.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Erratum: Health Equity Research in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Needs Assessment.JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The aim of health equity research was to initially identify inequities and ultimately eliminate them. Little is known about the content, quality, and impact of health equity research in the orthopaedic literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize the state of health equity research in orthopaedic surgery, with attention to temporal and specialty trends, research methodology, and intervention development. Methods: The Clarivate Web of Science platform was queried for English-language publications from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. Book chapters, meeting abstracts, proceeding papers, retracted publications, and non-English papers were excluded. Articles were filtered and then reviewed individually. Bibliometric data were noted, including publication year, open access, number of citations, and journal impact factor. We also collected information on clinical specialty, study design, community engagement, whether an intervention was designed or tested, and associated funding sources. Descriptive statistics were then calculated. Results: The initial search yielded 7,248 total articles, 855 of which were included. The majority (552/855, 64.6%) were published between 2019 and 2022, with 205 (24.0%) in 2022 alone. Arthroplasty was the most represented subspecialty, with 370 articles (43.3%). Seven hundred eighty-four articles (91.7%) were observational or experimental research studies. Of these, 73.1% had a retrospective design. Only one study (0.1%) used qualitative methods. Thirty-six articles (4.2%) focused on interventions. However, only 8 (0.9%) evaluated original interventions, while the majority of the others retrospectively analyzed the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansion, or bundled payments. Eighteen publications (2.1%) were directly supported by National Institutes of Health funding. Conclusion: There was a sharp increase in the number of orthopaedic publications on disparities, especially since 2019. Most are retrospective and identify or describe a disparity rather than investigate an intervention. There was a near-complete lack of qualitative methodology, community engagement, or federal funding. More institutional and financial support for this work is critical, as is the adaptation of new methodologies and community involvement.
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.