ArticleBMC research notes2026
German rehabilitation after total hip or knee arthroplasty through Dutch eyes: a qualitative focus group pilot study.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to learn from the experiences of patients who have undergone medical rehabilitation following hip or knee arthroplasty in the Netherlands and Germany. A qualitative focus group study was conducted among Dutch revision total hip and knee arthroplasty patients who had experience with initial rehabilitation in the Netherlands plus inpatient rehabilitation in Germany as part of the ‘Common Care’ pilot project. The focus group was recorded, transcribed verbatim and pseudonymised. A thematic analysis using an inductive approach was performed. Five patients and two family members joined the focus group. Analysis revealed five themes: language, location, therapy content, outcomes and structure. Content-wise, therapy, outcomes and structure of rehabilitation in Germany were perceived as more beneficial. In terms of location and language, patients favoured the Dutch approach. Participants generally expressed higher levels of satisfaction with the German rehabilitation trajectory versus the Dutch. The German approach’s main advantages were the more extensive therapy content and supervision plus a feeling of faster recovery, the Dutch were the home-sweet-home feeling, language and travel distance. Future research should further evaluate effects of rehabilitation policies especially on return to work.
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.