ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Matters arising on "Outcomes of dual mobility versus conventional total hip arthroplasty for patients with femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis including registry data".
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A meta-analysis by Santiago et al. compared outcomes between two types of total hip arthroplasty to guide clinical decisions for patients with hip fractures. This correspondence details discrepancies between the quantitative data presented in the meta-analysis and the data from its source articles. Methodological issues are also present: the risk of bias tool was applied inconsistently, and different study types (randomized and non-randomized) were combined in a single analysis without appropriate statistical adjustments. These points alter the study's quantitative outcomes, in some cases changing the direction of the comparative treatment effects. Therefore, the conclusions presented in the meta-analysis may not accurately reflect the underlying evidence, which has implications for their use in clinical decision-making.
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.