ArticleActa orthopaedica2025
Do patient-reported outcome scores better identify outlier surgical practice compared with revision rates for total knee arthroplasty?
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 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.
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 and purposeThe New Zealand Joint Registry provides surgeon-level feedback on revision rate and Oxford scores for primary total knee replacement (TKR). Potential outliers are identified using revision rate. Using patient-reported outcome measures to identify outliers, alongside revision rate, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of surgeons' results. We aimed to evaluate using Oxford scores compared with revision rates to identify potential outliers.
methodsA registry-based prospective longitudinal cohort design was used. The association between surgeon mean Oxford score at 6 months and revision rate at 2 years, within 5 years, and within 10 years was evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Funnel and scatter plots were used to compare potential outliers for both measures using control limit and centile outlier thresholds respectively. All TKR in the registry prior to 31 December 2021, performed for any indication, were included.
resultsThere was a weak negative association between mean Oxford score at 6 months and revision rate at 2 years, within 5 years, and within 10 years using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Funnel plot control limits identified similar numbers of outliers for 6-month Oxford score and revision rate, however, there here was minimal overlap in outliers identified using the 2 methods. There was also minimal overlap in outliers using centile thresholds.
conclusionCorrelation between Oxford score at 6 months and revision rates is weaker at the surgeon level compared with the patient level. Mean Oxford score identifies different potential outliers compared with revision rates with minimal overlap. This has implications for reporting surgeon-level outcomes, raising questions regarding the most appropriate measure of surgical performance following TKR.
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.