ArticleArthroplasty today2026
Impact of Reformation of the Arthroplasty Register From Analogic to Digital-Based Data: Increased Completeness and Accuracy of Knee Revision Data.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Internationally, attempts have been made to harmonize arthroplasty registries to improve the comparison of outcomes. In Finland, a thorough reformation of the Finnish Arthroplasty register (FAR) was implemented because register data had become outdated. Both the data collection system and the registry contents, including the classification of revision indications, were reformed and data gathering became fully electronic in 2014. Here, we aim to assess how the reformation of the FAR data collection system has affected the completeness and accuracy of the reporting of the reasons for knee revision in Finland. We also describe the reform of FAR data in detail and compare the reasons for knee revision in different national joint arthroplasty registries. Methods: We identified 160 revision knee arthroplasties performed at our institution before reformation of the FAR (2013) and 189 revisions after the reformation (2016). Detailed information on these revisions was obtained from the hospital's database and compared with information recorded in the FAR. Results: Registration completeness for the revision knee arthroplasties performed at our institution was 73% (117/160) in 2013 and 100% (189/189) in 2016. Moreover, after registry reform, the accuracy of registering periprosthetic joint infections also improved. Indeed, whereas only 65% of periprosthetic joint infections (31/48) were correctly recorded in the FAR in 2013, the corresponding figure was 98% (79/81) in 2016. Conclusions: Following the reformation of the FAR data collection system, both the accuracy and completeness of knee revision data improved. Additionally, the harmonization of arthroplasty registries internationally will enable a more coherent comparison of outcomes.
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.