ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Superior Sensitivity of the Forgotten Joint Score in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure assessing joint awareness after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Unlike traditional PROs, it is particularly sensitive to the "forgotten" quality of the joint, correlating with patient satisfaction and long-term success. This systematic review evaluates the FJS compared to conventional PROs in assessing TKA outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library identified randomized controlled trials reporting FJS alongside other PROs in primary TKA. Studies included various alignment techniques, implants, and robotic assistance. Independent reviewers performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. Pooled FJS scores were analyzed using random-effects models, with subgroup analyses by surgical technique and prosthesis type. Results: Fourteen randomized controlled trials (1244 knees) met inclusion criteria. FJS scores ranged from 19.00 to 98.00, with a mean of 73.61. Unlike Western Ontario and McMaster Universities, Oxford Knee Score, and Knee Society Score, the FJS showed no significant ceiling effect. Chi-square tests demonstrated that FJS detected significant postoperative improvements compared to Western Ontario and McMaster Universities and Knee Society Score ( Conclusions: The FJS demonstrates superior sensitivity and avoids ceiling effects compared to traditional PROs, making it a valuable tool for evaluating subtle differences in TKA outcomes. Its ability to detect nuanced improvements highlights its clinical relevance in optimizing surgical techniques and enhancing patient-centered care. Future research should prioritize the FJS to refine alignment strategies and implant designs.
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.