Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41089421›Full record

ReviewJB & JS open access

Assessing the Clinical Usefulness and Transparency of Knee Arthroplasty Randomized Controlled Trials (2020-2024): A Systematic Review Using the van't Hooft Framework.

Tanner Livsey, Samuel Lassiter, Alec Young, Taylor Gardner, Chance Bratten, Adam Khan, Eli Paul, J Michael Anderson, Amar Patel, Alicia Ito Ford and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JB & JS open access. 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

11 authors.

Tanner LivseyOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0428-6084
Samuel LassiterOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7226-9862
Alec YoungOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1947-1534
Taylor GardnerOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Chance BrattenOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Adam KhanOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1358-5119
Eli PaulOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0675-1521
J Michael AndersonDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0811-243X
Amar PatelDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2117-9221
Alicia Ito FordOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6866-2639
Matt VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Osteoarthritis is the most common joint disorder in the United States, and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is among the most frequently performed surgeries. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential for guiding treatment, their clinical usefulness remains uncertain. This study assessed the utility of TKA RCTs published between 2020 and 2024 using the van't Hooft usefulness framework. Methods: We systematically reviewed RCTs of knee arthroplasty published between 2020 and 2024, identified through MEDLINE and Embase (April 2, 2025). Utility was assessed using the 13-item van't Hooft framework. Linear regression analyzed associations between utility scores and study characteristics, including funding, sample size, and journal impact factor. Results: Of 184 studies, 29.3% met the problem-base criterion. Although 86.4% included patient-centered outcomes, most were secondary. Pragmatism was rare (1.1%). 23.9% were prospectively registered, and 4.9% provided raw data. Transparency and clinical utility were moderately correlated (r = 0.28, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Most RCTs showed internal validity but limited real-world relevance. Narrow eligibility, short follow-up, and poor transparency limit clinical impact. These findings should not be interpreted as a dismissal. Rather, they highlight opportunities to strengthen future trials so that they remain a cornerstone of evidence-based orthopaedics. Level of Evidence: Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID41089421
PMCPMC12517902

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.