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.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.