ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2025
Implementation and Evaluation of a Remote, Questionnaire-Based Model for Monitoring Patients Following Hip or Knee Replacement Surgery.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The benefits of long-term follow-up of patients following hip and knee joint replacement surgery are currently debated. This study evaluated a questionnaire-based model for remotely monitoring patients. Primary outcomes included response rates, acceptability to patients, and whether remote review identified patients requiring reoperation. Methods: Data were collected over a 7-year period from a large regional teaching hospital in Australia. Hard-copy questionnaires were sent to patients at 1, 5, and 8 years after joint replacement and biennially thereafter. The questionnaire assessed whether patients had pain or concerns regarding their joint replacement and whether orthopedic review was requested. Response rate was determined as the proportion of patients who returned the questionnaire and was considered acceptable if it was not significantly lower than the proportion of patients who attended a 1-year in-person appointment in the 3 years prior to introducing remote-review. Patient preferences for remote versus in-person review were collected from a subgroup of patients (n = 488) using an investigator-designed questionnaire. All reoperations during the study period were examined to determine if they were first identified via the remote-review questionnaire. Results: The response rate at 1 year was 69.3% (2,266 responses from 3,268 questionnaires sent), which was significantly lower than historical in-person outpatient attendance rates (82.7%, Conclusions: While remote review following joint replacement surgery was consistent with most patients' preferences for follow-up care, response rates were lower than historical attendance rates for in-person outpatient appointments. Routine remote review was an inefficient mechanism for identifying complications requiring reoperation, most of which were first identified via emergency departments and general practice.
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.