ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Temporal Analysis of Patients Eligible for Randomized Controlled Trials in Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There has been a shift in the demographics of patients undergoing elective lower extremity joint arthroplasties in recent years. This study aimed to assess whether research has kept pace with changing demographics through analyzing inclusion and exclusion criteria of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relevant to total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of RCTs studying primary THAs indexed on ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Trial characteristics regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria of 706 studies initiated between 1994-2023 were analyzed. Sample size, type of intervention, year of study initiation, length of study, and inclusion/exclusion criteria were evaluated. Results: An increasing number of THA-based RCTs were initiated over the study period (1994-2004: 5.18 studies/y, 2021-2023: 36.7 studies/y). The majority of included RCTs had an upper age exclusion criterion (1994-2004: 65.9%, 2021-2023: 53.6%). Body mass index (BMI) restrictions have become more common than previously (1994-2004: 5.3%, 2021-2023: 29.1%); however, the range has expanded to include higher BMI limits. The most common exclusion criteria based upon health comorbidities included psychiatric health and cognitive impairment (36.4%), neurologic and neuromuscular dysfunction (32.6%), and systemic infections (31.4%). Conclusions: Regarding elective primary THA, it is recognized that the age and BMI of patients have shifted substantially over recent decades. This study revealed that restrictions on participant age continue to be prevalent. Although the average BMI of patients undergoing elective THA is rising, BMI is increasingly being implemented as an exclusion criterion. Critical assessment of inclusion and exclusion criteria for all studies, especially RCTs, given their associated cost and potential impact, requires further attention in orthopaedics.
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.