SynthesisBone & joint open2026
Evaluating methodological quality of prognostic prediction models on patient-reported outcome measurements after total hip and total knee arthroplasty : a systematic review.
Synthesis in Bone & joint open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Task-specific determinants of one-year performance after unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Predictive modelling studies are increasingly popular, but the reporting quality in developing and validating these models remains suboptimal. This review aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of predictive models for patient-reported outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), identifying gaps in reporting and biases. Methods: The review followed PRISMA guidelines, appraising studies that developed and/or validated multivariate predictive models. Methodological quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) tool, and reporting quality was evaluated using Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines. An electronic search was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to 29 May 2025 and several studies from expert recommendation. Studies involving adults (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing elective primary or revision THA or TKA were included, while univariate analyses and literature reviews were excluded. Results: The search identified 6,194 results, with 3,793 unique articles. A total of 58 studies were screened, and 41 were included. TRIPOD compliance ranged from 58% to 68%. Overall, 98% of studies had a low risk of bias in participant selection, but 83% showed a high risk of bias in analysis. Applicability concerns were low in 93% of studies. Conclusion: The review reveals significant methodological limitations in predictive models for THA and TKA outcomes, especially in analysis. Improving adherence to reporting guidelines is essential for enhancing transparency and reliability, ultimately supporting better clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.
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.