SynthesisActa orthopaedica2026
Registration and reporting characteristics of trials investigating exercise therapy following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Acta orthopaedica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeProspectively registering the primary trial outcome is important to reduce selective outcome reporting and increase the trustworthiness of findings, which guide clinical practice. The objectives of our systematic review were to explore and compare the reporting characteristics of prospectively and non-prospectively registered trials investigating exercise therapy following total knee arthroplasty.
methodsRandomized trials comparing effects of exercise therapy after total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis were identified in 4 databases from 2000 to August 12, 2024. One primary outcome per trial was extracted, using a pre-specified hierarchical algorithm, irrespective of outcome domain. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated on pre-specified outcome domains, and risk-of-bias assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool v2.
results94 trials, comprising 9,396 participants, were included, of which 13 were prospectively registered, 33 retrospectively registered, and 48 unregistered. A single primary outcome was defined in 44% of the 94 trials, and 4 trials reported a primary outcome consistent with a prospective registration. The pooled SMD of primary outcomes was 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.03 to 0.16) for prospectively registered trials, 0.67 (CI 0.22-1.11) for retrospectively registered trials, and 0.59 (CI 0.32-0.86) for unregistered trials. Lower risk-of-bias ratings and higher proportions of intention-to-treat adherence, dropout reporting, and adverse event reporting were observed among prospectively registered trials.
conclusionAmong prospectively registered trials we showed smaller effect size estimates between interventions with lower risk-of-bias ratings, and higher proportions of intention-to-treat adherence, dropout reporting, and adverse event reporting in contrast to trials without prospective registration; furthermore, clear specification of a single primary outcome was uncommon among trials evaluating exercise therapy after total knee arthroplasty.
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.