Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40799977›Full record

ReviewOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2025

Orthopaedic registry history and future in South Africa.

Brian Bernstein, Odette Koch, Thomas Hilton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Brian BernsteinDivision of Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1859-4594
Odette KochNo. 1 Military Hospital, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1871-9569
Thomas HiltonUniversity of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6178-5062

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data is power. In 2017, the South African Orthopaedic Association (SAOA) presidential line identified a political and market-influenced initiative to collect and use data in the health care space. The South African government had funded a "Health Market Inquiry" (HMI), which determined that medical professionals were poorly monitored and lacked peer review. Clinicians were not involved in this effort and were not well positioned to represent the interests of patients. The report noted that funders and hospital groups favored patient-reported outcome measurements (PROs) but proposed to collect and interpret the data themselves. Clinical data was, therefore, being collected and interpreted by nonclinicians. It became evident that it was in the interest of the SAOA to control this data securely with orthopaedic peer interpretation of the data. At the time of the HMI report, 2 databases were in use in South Africa: a National Joint Registry had been created in 2012 (limited to arthroplasty) and the REDCap database had been adopted by many academic units and was used mainly for research. Other than these registries, medical data was individually stored and opaque. This report summarizes the efforts of the SAOA to collect meaningful PROs and provide clinically relevant data analysis to inform health care policy and clinical quality improvement.

Indexed as

datapeer reviewregistry

Identifiers

PMID40799977
PMCPMC12337251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.